By B. V. Tripurari Swami http://www.swami.org/sanga

Question:      I read your comments on women and sannyasa and appreciated them, but a sannyasi informed me that they were not in line with Srila Prabhupada's opinion and the Vedic position on this issue. He sent me the following quote from Prabhupada's books:

"So-called spiritual societies concocted in modern times give sannyasa even to women, although there is no sanction in the Vedic literature for a woman's accepting sannyasa. Otherwise, if it were sanctioned, Kardama Muni could have taken his wife and given her sannyasa."

He then wrote to me that we must strictly follow the Vedic principles because this was Prabhupada's standard. He also explained that "We should have faith that Srila Prabhupada's books will be the 'Law books' for mankind for the next 10,000 years. Therefore we don't very much appreciate Swami Tripurari's willingness to change them so easily. Also this 'sannyasa for women' is more than a mere detail as it involves the principle of protecting women, which is a cornerstone of the Vedic culture." With all respect, can you comment on this for my benefit?

Answer:     I have not proposed that Srila Prabhupada's books be changed. However, I do not think that a literal understanding of the idea that Prabhupada's books will be "the law books for the next 10,000 years" is well-reasoned or realistic. Incidentally, this statement attributed to Srila Prabhupada cannot be found anywhere in the written record.

Furthermore, I do not think that the sannyasi who wrote you and others like him are "strictly following the Vedic principles." If such sannyasis were doing so, they would be walking barefoot, bathing only in holy rivers, passing only one night in each village, etc., etc.

Prabhupada wrote that women should be protected in all stages of life, as children by their father, as wives by their husbands, and as widows by their sons. In spite of this he himself created a brahmacarini order in ISKCON. Who is protecting them? Perhaps Krsna. Srila Prabhupada wrote:

"Actually, there is no... brahmacarini is not allowed in the sastra. Where is the question of brahmacarini? Because according to Vedic system, as soon as a girl is fourteen years old or sixteen years old, she is at once married. According to Vedic system, no girl should be allowed remaining unmarried. So there is no question of brahmacarini. Every girl is supposed to be married. That is the Vedic system."

Yet in spite of quotes like this he established a brahmacarini asrama! He also said the following in this regard:

"So at the present moment we cannot strictly follow [the Vedic culture]; neither we are strictly following; neither it is possible to strictly follow. As far as possible, that's all. Our conception of brahmacarini is in the Krsna society, because. Especially in India, there is no brahmacarini. But here, in your country, the boys and girls mix very freely, but just to restrict such free mixing, we think that the unmarried girls should remain separately. That is the contemplation. Actually, in the Vedic system there is no brahmacarini system."

In the above quote Srila Prabhupada speaks of establishing a brahmacarini asrama in his society in spite of the fact that it is not Vedic to do so. He said the following about this non-Vedic asrama:

"I am so pleased that you are guiding your God-sisters in N.Y. so nicely. But some of your God-sisters in San Francisco want you for 2 months. I have asked them to write you directly and if you can spare yourself for that time to organize a brahmacarini asrama in S.F., please think it over. I have seen the article put in Boston newspaper about your activities there, and I am so glad to see your picture, just a brahmacarini. The picture was very attractive for me, and I pray Krsna that you may make further progress in Krsna consciousness so your spiritual beauty may come out more and more."

"If you can organize a brahmacarini asrama, it will be very nice idea."

The example of Srila Prabhupada's ISKCON is noteworthy: in today's ISKCON, the position of the GBC is arguably higher than sannyasa. Although women were not members of the GBC during the personal presence of Srila Prabhupada, the wise leaders of today's ISKCON have appointed women members of the GBC. Who is protecting them? Perhaps the best protection for women in today's society is education, by which they will be aided in seeing through the pretense of concern for their well being on the part of male chauvinists who disguise their sexism in quasi-spiritual packaging. Such chauvinists hardly represent Srila Prabhupada and sorely lack his dynamic spiritual vision.

I believe that the question of whether or not women can accept the sannyasa order or not is a detail. Indeed, in my original article I pointed out that the entire institution of sannyasa within Gaudiya Vaisnavism is a detail, one that can be added or deleted as time and circumstances warrant in the determination of spiritually advanced preachers. Details can be changed, as was done by Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura when he instituted sannyasa for our sampradaya. It can be changed in order to underscore essential principles. As I have stated in the article in question, I personally believe that there is merit in considering the possibility that it may be useful for preaching to award sannyasa to women in our sampradaya. Yet, I personally have not done this, nor do I have any plans to do so. Furthermore, I remain open to consider that this may not be prudent at this time.

I believe that in spite of what Prabhupada has said on this in the past, were he personally present today he might reconsider. After all, as demonstrated above with regard to the brahmacarini ashram, he was known to do this after receiving new information or as circumstances changed, reversing his position on issues from time to time as any reasonable person would do.

Some persons like to find things that I say that seem to contradict Srila Prabhupada and in doing so assert that I am not his follower. They find literal contradictions but fail to grasp the spirit of my preaching that keeps me in line with my guru-parampara. A number of Srila Prabhupada's disciples committed the same error in relation to him. At a certain stage of spiritual advancement a disciple is entitled to what may appear to be his own opinion while embracing the spirit of the message of his guru, especially with regard to preaching and time, place, and manner considerations. Sincere devotees should consider this point carefully.

Simply because an advanced disciple offers a different opinion from that of his guru, this is not grounds for concluding that he is not a true follower of his guru. Srila Prabhupada has stated in writing in his Bhagavatam commentary that Brahma is in sakhya-rasa, whereas his gurudeva, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Prabhupada, opined that Brahma is in madhurya-rasa. This is certainly not a detail, yet I consider my gurudeva to be a strict follower of his guru in spite of his different angle of vision on this important issue.

Overall, it is best to be generous in our attitude toward one another, and furthermore we should rise to the level of being able to accommodate differences of opinion amongst one another without feeling the necessity to declare holy war.