The female dīkṣā-guru issue is not about one side in favor of it and the other side against it. Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu said kibā vipra kibā nyāsī śūdra kene naya, yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā sei guru haya—that also includes women. However, Prabhupāda also frequently referered to Manu-saṁhitā (9.3), which says, “A woman is protected in her childhood by her father, by her husband in her youth, and by grown sons in her old age; the woman is never fit for independence (na strī svātantryam arhati).” If a woman is unfit for independence, then how can she become dīkṣā-guru? The question is whether women in sādhana-bhakti would violate varṇāśrama regulations by becoming dīkṣā-guru.

The kibā vipra verse

The strongest evidence in favor of women’s eligibility is Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta 8.128—kibā vipra kibā nyāsī śūdra kene naya, ye kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā sei guru haya, “Whether one is a brāhmaṇa, a sannyāsī or a śūdra — regardless of what he is — he can become a spiritual master if he knows the science of Kṛṣṇa.” Women are also implied.

In his discussion with Professor and Mrs. O’Connell (18 June 1976), Prabhupāda says,

“The qualification of guru is that he must be fully cognizant of the science of Kṛṣṇa. Then he or she can become guru. Yei kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā, sei guru haya.”

He confirms that women are included.

Moreover, Prabhupāda’s statement applies to those at the niṣṭha stage of sādhana-bhakti. He says, “as soon as one is trained as a pure Vaiṣṇava, he must be accepted as a bona fide brāhmaṇa.” Being “trained” implies one is still a sādhaka, still influenced by the material energy. So, as per Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 11.3.21, if men at the stage of niṣṭha are allowed to be dīkṣā-guru, why not women?

In the same purport, Prabhupāda says it is a principle that “hereditary consideration” is unacceptable. “Unless we accept the principle enunciated by Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement cannot spread all over the world.” If this is violated—even against only a single devotee—then no effort to propagate Kṛṣṇa consciousness can be successful.

And finally, there is a letter to Haṁsadūta dated January 3, 1969, in which he writes,

“One who will pass this examination will be awarded with the title of Bhaktivedanta. 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. Maybe by 1975, all of my disciples will be allowed to initiate and increase the numbers of the generations. That is my program.”

It is simple: Prabhupāda says “spiritual sons and daughters” will inherit the Bhaktivedānta title, and those who possess it “will be allowed to initiate disciples.” Why expect anything else?

As the above references indicate, there is no doubt that the kibā vipra verse also applies to women. Overall, the case in favor of women’s eligibility to become dīkṣā-guru is strong.

The Sunīti Purport

However, the case against women becoming dīkṣā-guru is at least as strong. Prabhupāda also said that Dhruva Mahārāja’s mother, Sunīti, could not become Dhruva’s dīkṣā-guru, because she was a woman.

He says,

“According to śāstric injunctions, there is no difference between śikṣā-guru and dīkṣā-guru, and generally the śikṣā-guru later on becomes the dīkṣā-guru. Sunīti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Mahārāja’s dīkṣā-guru.”

In the purport, Prabhupāda explains that the śikṣā-guru generally becomes the dīkṣā-guru. In the pāñcaratrika-śāstras, gṛhastha ācāryas initiating their own sons is permitted. And this is still practiced by traditional Vaiṣṇava families. If women were also permitted to be dīkṣā-guru equally with men, then there would be no prohibition against women initiating their own sons. But Nārada Muni became Dhruva’s dīkṣā-guru, not Sunīti, and Prabhupāda explained that it was because Sunīti was a woman.

Other supporting statements

On a morning walk in Rome, 27 May 1974, Prabhupāda said, “Everything will be satisfied. Just like our women, Kṛṣṇa conscious, they are working. They don’t want equal rights with the men. . . . They never said that ‘I have to go to Japan for preaching like Prabhupāda.’” In a letter dated 21st February 1976 to Yamuna and Dinatarine, who had acquired a house for their own residence in Oregon, USA, Prabhupāda said “cow protection is not possible for women.” He said they could keep two or three cows, but “on a larger scale it is not possible. . . Manage a small asram, but don’t try bigger scale, then you require the help of men.” How, with these expectations, can women become dīkṣā-guru, when the role itself requires interaction with society at large? The recommended sadācāra for women is ill-fitted to the duties of a dīkṣā-guru.

As per this recollection from the late Jashomatinandana Prabhu, women in Prabhupāda’s time did not give public lectures.

“There were four Mayapur festivals in the Divine presence of the founder Acharya. Why not a single instance of women giving lecture during any four of them, 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1977? I don’t remember any other instances of a woman giving a Bhagavatam lecture during my whole Krsna conscious life with Srila Prabhupada’s personal presence from 1972 till 1977. No less than three hundred days. That doesn’t mean there never was an instance when a woman might have given a lecture. But it is like a needle in the haystack.” (Email dated 28 March 2014)

Prabhupada also often quoted Cāṇakya Paṇḍita’s advice that women and politicians should never be trusted, while the dīkṣā-guru and śiṣya relationship requires absolute and unconditional faith.

Support from Prabhupāda’s books

In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, 7.12.18 purport, Prabhupāda writes, “In Kali-yuga, people are extremely liberal, but mixing with women and talking with them as equals actually constitutes an uncivilized way of life.” If mixing with women and talking with them as equals is uncivilized, then how can they become dīkṣā-guru?

He also said that woman is always less intelligent than man:

“Here is a difference between male and female that exists even in the higher statuses of life — in fact, even between Lord Śiva and his wife. Lord Śiva could understand Citraketu very nicely, but Pārvatī could not. Thus even in the higher statuses of life there is a difference between the understanding of a male and that of a female. It may be clearly said that the understanding of a woman is always inferior to the understanding of a man. In the Western countries there is now agitation to the effect that man and woman should be considered equal, but from this verse it appears that woman is always less intelligent than man.” (Bhāgavatam 6.17.34-35 purport)

Sometimes women expressed their concern to Prabhupāda about such statements, and in response he said that one who is Kṛṣṇa conscious is most intelligent. Some say that Prabhupāda’s response proves he made a categorical exception for ISKCON’s women. But if there is such difference in intelligence between Lord Śiva and Goddess Pārvatī, then how can this not also generally apply to the relative difference in intelligence between men and women in ISKCON?

In Bhagavad-gītā As It Is, 16.7, Prabhupāda writes.

“Now, in the Manu-saṁhitā it is clearly stated that a woman should not be given freedom. That does not mean that women are to be kept as slaves, but they are like children. Children are not given freedom, but that does not mean that they are kept as slaves. The demons have now neglected such injunctions, and they think that women should be given as much freedom as men.” (BG 16.7).

Some say that this statement was meant for other women, not for devotees in ISKCON. But if that is true, then why is this statement in ISKCON’s most publicly distributed book? And why would anyone else follow it if ISKCON’s own devotees did not? In his purport to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 7.11.7, Prabhupāda says, “One cannot be a pure devotee without following the śruti and smṛti, and the śruti and smṛti without devotional service cannot lead one to the perfection of life.” Therefore, ignoring this injunction from Manu-saṁhitā will also result in the failure of the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement to be propagated all over the world.

Support from śāstra and previous ācāryas

On only four occasions did Prabhupāda write or speak directly about women as dīkṣā-guru. In speaking directly about the matter he has said very little. This in turn has given rise to considerable doubt. For example, the SAC in their 2005 paper gives two mutually incompatible interpretations of Prabhupāda’s statement about Sunīti’s ineligibility, and they do not attempt to offer any interpretation of their own. This has created even more doubt about what Prabhupāda meant. In resolving such doubts, consulting śāstra and the statements of other ācāryas not quoted by Prabhupāda is usually necessary.

One important śāstra is the Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā, which is part of Nārada Pañcarātra. Prabhupāda and other ācāryas have also referred to it in their own works. This śāstra deals explicitly with the qualification of women for dīkṣā-guru. It is the only śāstra quoted by either side that directly deals with the matter. The kibā vipra verse or anything else quoted does not explicitly mention women. Only the ślokas from Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā do.

The Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā says that among women, śūdras and others who are otherwise ineligible to become dīkṣā-guru, only those spiritually advanced enough to directly perceive the Lord are eligible—otherwise they are prohibited. Śrīla Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa in his own commentary to Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 1.13.15 also quotes this same śāstra. Therein, he confirms that only women and śūdras who are advanced enough to see Kṛṣṇa face-to-face are eligible to become dīkṣā-guru. Both the Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā and Baladeva Vidyabhūṣaṇa confirm that Prabhupāda’s statement in Bhāgavatam 4.12.32 about Sunīti’s ineligibility was on account of her being a woman, not for any other reason.

What about male dīkṣā-gurus?

Some have challenged that if women are categorically prohibited from becoming dīkṣā-guru, then all of Prabhupāda’s foreign male disciples must also be categorically prohibited. No foreign-born gurus, period. The Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā not only prohibits women but also prohibits śūdras and those less than śūdras. However, once a man becomes brāhmaṇa by the process of dīkṣā-vidhāna, he is no longer a śūdra but is a brāhmaṇa. On attaining dvijatvam, one who was formerly a śūdra or lower is now a full-fledged brāhmaṇa, and the prohibition formerly against him no longer applies.

The follow-up challenge is that if women can also become brāhmaṇa, then they should also be allowed to become dīkṣā-guru. But this is not the case. At the time of initiation, one’s varṇa may change but one’s gender does not. In the case of women, the śāstric prohibition is against gender, not any other quality. By heredity, by marriage, or by initiation, women may belong to the brāhmaṇa varṇa. However, they are still not permitted to become dīkṣā-guru, because Manu-saṁhitā considers women of any varṇa unfit for independence (na strī svātantryam arhati).

Even today under modern law, minors are not allowed to adopt children or enter into contracts, because they are not independent. Only their guardians would have the right to do so on their behalf. Minors do not have these rights. Therefore, as per Vedic law, women are not allowed to adopt children independently. The right to make that decision lies only with a woman’s father, husband or grown sons. A similar consideration would be there for accepting disciples. She would not be able to do that independently of a guardian. If her guardian prohibits it, there is nothing she can do. Thus, for women to act as dīkṣā-guru, she would have to be above the varṇāśrama rules and regulations, as per Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā 1.44. For jīvas, that level of realization begins at the bhava stage of bhakti.

The question of female dīkṣā-gurus in ISKCON is not whether women can serve in that role—history affirms that they can, like Jāhnavā Devī. Rather, the issue lies in the distinction between levels of realization. A devotee who has attained the highest realization of Kṛṣṇa differs greatly from one who has not, and thus not all are kṛṣṇa-tattva-vettā to the same degree. If someone is only ninety-nine percent conversant with the science of Kṛṣṇa, he, or she, is called a sādhaka, and sādhakas are the vast majority of all devotees. The fundamental question is whether sādhakas who are women can become dīkṣā-guru without also violating varṇāśrama regulations such as Manu-saṁhitā 9.3, or violating the pāñcarātrika regulations given in Bhāradvāja-saṁhitā 1.42 – 44.

These are some of the essential questions at the heart of ISKCON’s female dīkṣā-guru issue.