[This is a transcript of a video posted on 10 January 2026, which is available at this link. The transcript itself is published here with the permission of the video’s author.]
Hare Kṛṣṇa. Some years back, I did a lengthy presentation on the topic of Vaiṣṇavī-dīkṣā-guru: should Vaiṣṇavīs become initiating gurus in ISKCON? Now, if you’ve not watched it, I recommend that you do so, and it is linked in the description. This presentation is on the same topic, but it’s focused on one simple point, which is: if Prabhupāda did not establish Vaiṣṇavī-dīkṣā-gurus, the GBC should not do so. Vaiṣṇavīs should not initiate in ISKCON.
Now, I’ve taken that conclusion from Caitanya-caritāmṛta. I’m going to give you a little background on this. Caitanya Mahāprabhu has arrived in Mathurā, and He’s dancing and chanting in ecstasy. All of the Mathurā-vāsīs are just amazed watching Him. All of a sudden, a Sanodiyā Brāhmaṇa starts to dance and chant with Lord Caitanya, sharing the same loving ecstasy that the Lord has. Lord Caitanya is thinking that this person must have some kind of connection with Mādhavendra Purī. This type of ecstatic love is not possible without that type of connection. As it turns out, the Sanodiyā Brāhmaṇa was initiated by Mādhavendra Purī, and Mādhavendra Purī visited his home and even ate his cooking.
Now, this becomes the tension point. Some of the Brāhmaṇas are culturally low-class, and so, strictly speaking, sannyāsīs do not eat their cooking. But Mādhavendra Purī did. So this then answers the question: is it really acceptable to eat the cooking of a Sanodiyā? Could Caitanya Mahāprabhu eat? So, I’m going to quote the answers that Caitanya Mahāprabhu gives to this question.
prabhu kahe, — śruti, smṛti, yata ṛṣi-gaṇa
sabe ‘eka’-mata nahe, bhinna bhinna dharma
“The Vedas, Purāṇas and great learned sages are not always in agreement with one another. Consequently, there are different religious principles.” (CC Madhya 17.184)
Here’s a second verse. This is sort of the pivotal point around which this whole presentation is based:
dharma-sthāpana-hetu sādhura vyavahāra
purī-gosāñira ye ācaraṇa, sei dharma sāra
“A devotee’s behavior establishes the true purpose of religious principles. The behavior of Mādhavendra Purī Gosvāmī is the essence of such religious principles.” (CC Madhya 17.185)
You find this in the 17th chapter of Madhya-līlā.
And then Lord Caitanya quotes this verse that Śrīla Prabhupāda often refers to. Begins, tarko ‘pratiṣṭha śrutayo vibhinnā. . . I won’t give all the Sanskrit, but Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s translation is: “Dry arguments are inconclusive. A great personality whose opinion does not differ from others is not considered a great sage. Simply by studying the Vedas, which are variegated, one cannot come to the right path by which religious principles are understood. The solid truth of religious principles is hidden in the heart of an unadulterated, self-realized person. Consequently, as the śāstras confirm, one should accept whatever progressive path the mahājanas advocate”. How many times Śrīla Prabhupāda has quoted mahājano yena gataḥ sa pantaḥ?
In other words, because Mādhavendra Purī’s conduct is the essence and conclusion of all scriptures, although there was a tradition of not eating at Sanodiyā’s, Mādhavendra Purī’s conduct was the real answer to the question “Can a sannyāsī eat a Sanodiyā Brāhmaṇa’s cooking?” and the answer was “yes.” So Lord Caitanya said, and I will repeat: “The Vedas, Purāṇas, and great learned sages are not always in agreement with one another. Consequently, there are different religious principles.” And then,
dharma-sthāpana-hetu sādhura vyavahāra
purī-gosāñira ye ācaraṇa, sei dharma sāra
“A devotee’s behavior establishes the true purpose of religious principles. The behavior of Mādhavendra Purī Gosvāmī is the essence of such religious principles.” (CC Madhya 17.185)
So please keep this in mind: a devotee’s behavior establishes the true purpose of religious principles.
Now, in the case of this Vaiṣṇavī-dīkṣā-guru controversy, Śrīla Prabhupāda is the devotee, or more clearly, the unadulterated, self-realized person. So let’s see what is Śrīla Prabhupāda’s behavior. We saw Mādhavendra Purī’s behavior; now, what is Śrīla Prabhupāda’s behavior? In the twelve years, Śrīla Prabhupāda never put Vaiṣṇavīs in the position of senior authority—not Temple President, not GBC, no leadership position, and ultimately, not a guru. So what does that say to you? There were women who were faithful, intelligent, and Kṛṣṇa conscious—more so than some men, more so than many men.
For instance, about Yamunā Devī, Śrīla Prabhupāda said if she had taken birth as a man, he would have appointed her as a GBC. She was a very good manager. And Śrīla Prabhupāda added that if she were a woman GBC member, then Yamunā would only have one-half of a vote. Still, Śrīla Prabhupāda didn’t make her a GBC. So please note that as a woman, Yamunā Devī would have a half a vote on the GBC. Śrīla Prabhupāda did not make men and women socially equal. Spiritually? No question. But when it came to taking managerial responsibility or leadership responsibility, Śrīla Prabhupāda didn’t.
So the real point is: why in all that time did Śrīla Prabhupāda not select even one Vaiṣṇavī in a leadership position? At the end, why didn’t Śrīla Prabhupāda select at least one Vaiṣṇavī as a dīkṣā-guru? Why? So the question does require an answer, and there is one. Prabhupāda’s conduct is the answer. And what was Prabhupāda’s conduct as far as leadership? Because women should always be protected, they should not be in an independent leadership position. So Prabhupāda didn’t want women in service of leaders.
And now, honing in on disciples becoming gurus, what did Prabhupāda say or do in that regard? In 1977, Śrīla Prabhupāda repeatedly spoke to men about the topic of guru, but not once did he speak to women. For example, this was in Mumbai on the 22nd of April. Śrīla Prabhupāda is saying this—this is actually a quote from Servant of the Servant. That night Śrīla Prabhupāda asked Akṣayānanda Mahārāja, “Are you ready to initiate disciples? I want to retire now.” Akṣayānanda replied that with Prabhupāda’s order came the ability to carry it out; therefore, he was ready. And when it came to selecting dīkṣā-gurus, Prabhupāda selected men; he did not select Vaiṣṇavīs as a guru. Now, why not?
A point aside but important: Śrīla Prabhupāda was aware that at that time women were not treated in the nicest possible way in ISKCON. If he wanted to make a point about women’s equality, here was a golden opportunity. But Śrīla Prabhupāda didn’t do so. Why not? Again, there were women who were faithful, intelligent, and Kṛṣṇa conscious more so than some men. But still, he did not do it. So in light of dharma-sthāpana-hetu, his conduct says something.
Currently, ISKCON devotees argue quoting different pros and cons regarding Vaiṣṇavīs becoming dīkṣā-gurus in our movement. I ask: who is to say what is the conclusion of this argument? Is it the GBC? They are certainly the ultimate authority in the movement, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that their decision is correct. And they are divided: devotees with this opinion and devotees with that opinion. As Gour Govinda Swāmī Mahārāja once said, siddhānta is not established by votes. So who is to say what is the conclusion on the Vaiṣṇavī-dīkṣā-guru controversy? My humble answer is Śrīla Prabhupāda. Prabhupāda is always correct.
How will he then say what the decision is? He has said it by his actions. He didn’t make them gurus. His conduct—that conduct is the essence and conclusion of all scriptures. So based on Śrīla Prabhupāda’s conduct, Vaiṣṇavī-dīkṣā-gurus are not sanctioned by scripture. And if Prabhupāda didn’t do it, we should not do it. There should be no Vaiṣṇavī-dīkṣā-gurus in ISKCON.
In summary, weigh everything in the balance: Prabhupāda’s consistent conduct versus the resolution of the GBC that is based on two references by Śrīla Prabhupāda to Jāhnavā Devī as the initiator, Kṛṣṇa’s eternally liberated associate. Yes, Jāhnavā Devī initiated devotees and Śrīla Prabhupāda referred to her. But keep this in mind: Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu replied, “The Vedas, Purāṇas, and great learned sages are not always in agreement with one another. Consequently, there are different religious principles.” Yes, Vaiṣṇavīs can initiate like Jāhnavā—transcendentalists—but not practitioners.
Maybe other so-called Vaiṣṇava sampradāyas do let women initiate. Gauḍīya Matha does not, Madhva-sampradāya does not, Rāmānuja-sampradāya does not, and Śrīla Prabhupāda did not want Vaiṣṇavī-dīkṣā-gurus in ISKCON. If he did, he would have done it. And since he didn’t, we shouldn’t do it. “A devotee’s behavior establishes the true purpose of religious principles, and the behavior of Mādhavendra Purī Gosvāmī is the essence of such religious principles.” That is my understanding.
But just a minute, please hold on. There are two alternatives on this topic: either I’m right or I’m wrong. Now, if you also agree that women should not initiate, then don’t just sit by. As of February of this year, which is a little more than a month away, the moratorium on Vaiṣṇavī-dīkṣā-gurus is up. That means sādhaka women will initiate. Some are already doing so. Vaiṣṇavī-dīkṣā-guru will become the standard in ISKCON, and all this against Prabhupāda’s own example.
Now, you can do something; you have the right to do so and you have the obligation to do so. What can you do? Please do not sit by. Communicate to your GBC, your Temple President, your zonal supervisor. You don’t want ISKCON transformed into an apa-sampradāya. That is what many devotees are feeling in the movement, and from those Vaiṣṇavas who are viewing ISKCON outside, they are also fearing this fate. Prabhupāda did not do it; we shouldn’t. Write a letter, send a petition, personally speak to your GBC member. Show that you do not agree and that the GBC should stop the practice of Vaiṣṇavī-dīkṣā-gurus and should not sanction it any further. That’s it. Thank you very much. Hare Kṛṣṇa. Jaya Śrīla Prabhupāda.