Is the SAC’s 2005 paper in line with guru, sādhu and śāstra?

Posted inArticles, EssaysNo Comments
In 2005, at the request of the GBC, the Śāstric Advisory Council wrote a paper titled “Female Diksa-gurus in ISKCON.” Since then, its conclusions were the basis of several GBC resolutions. However, the SAC paper has unsubstantiated false claims, nullification of Prabhupāda’s instructions, speculation, and manufactured religious injunctions.

Female Dīkṣā-Gurus: Ensuring the unity of ISKCON on doctrinal matters

Posted inArticles, EssaysNo Comments
An important goal of the GBC is to ensure that their members maintain unity in diversity. However, diversity should be united by śāstra. Śāstra is the lynch pin that unifies diverse opinions and keeps ISKCON united. . . The female dīkṣā-guru issue is another example of a subject on which Prabhupāda has not only said very little but also said different, seemingly incompatible things at different times. This also cannot be settled without reverting to previous ācāryas and śāstra.
Can śūdras become dīkṣā-gurus in ISKCON?

Can śūdras become dīkṣā-gurus in ISKCON?

Posted inArticles, Essays, ISKCONNo Comments
Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu’s well-known statement — “Whether one is a brāhmaṇa, a sannyāsī or a śūdra, he can become a spiritual master if he knows the science of Kṛṣṇa” (Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Madhya-līlā, 8.128) — is often cited as a rejection of social status in spiritual life. Many think it means neither birth nor social status matters; only realization of kṛṣṇa-tattva matters. Yet ISKCON’s Governing Body Commission (GBC) as per a resolution in 2014 requires candidates for dīkṣā-guru to be “twice-initiated for at least ten years.” This raises a doubt: does ISKCON’s law contradict Mahāprabhu’s teaching?
Is Shastra the Center of ISKCON?

Is Śāstra the Central Authority for ISKCON?

Posted inArticles, Essays, ISKCONNo Comments
In May 2025 the Supreme Court gave Bengaluru ISKCON control of the Hare Krishna Hill temple, rejecting Mumbai ISKCON’s claims, but in October a split verdict on Mumbai’s review petitions sent the matter to a larger bench, suspending Bengaluru’s victory. Madhu Pandit Das had hailed the earlier ruling as vindication of the ritvik system, where Prabhupāda is believed to continue initiating disciples after his departure, yet the later review makes that claim uncertain. And since even highly learned judges and spiritual leaders can make mistakes, the deeper issue remains: how can anyone be certain that interpretations of Prabhupāda’s intentions—whether for or against ritvik initiations—are free from error?