Female Dīkṣā Gurus

by Nitya-Siddha Mahā-Bhāgavat Śrīla Aindra Dāsa Paramahaṁsa

The point is, is that whoever is advanced, what's the use of having a male guru, if the male guru is not above the anartha-nivṛtti platform even? Then he's not actually guru; he's guru-ābhāsa. If he's vaiṣṇava-ābhāsa, because he's not chanting śuddha-nāma, then he's guru-ābhāsa.

All Vaiṣṇavas or Vaiṣṇavīs are gurus. They're just different degrees of empowerment, depending on their particular status. If they're kaniṣṭha-adhikārīs, they're not actually Vaiṣṇavas. So they cannot actually be guru. They can be guru-ābhāsa. But if they're madhyama-adhikārīs chanting śuddha-nāma, then they have certain right to act as guru, because they can give śuddha-nāma. The point is, is that advancement is required.

Otherwise, if there's meager advancement, then how are you going to help? If your hands are tied, how are you going to help untie the hands of another baddha-jīva? Therefore, the recommendation is that before one ventures to become guru, or act as guru, he should be on the uttama-adhikārī platform, at least from the stage of bhāva onward. Because from the stage of bhāva, one is considered to be practically above the influence of the three modes of material nature, situated on the spiritual platform.

Therefore, śrotriyaṁ brahma-niṣṭham (Muṇḍaka (1.2.12)). Brahma-niṣṭham means he's fixed on the spiritual platform. Should be a realized soul. If he's not realized or she's not realized, then why the guru business? For business purposes? So that we can get a piece of the cake?

Question: Then it's definitely not like, āmāra ājñāya guru hañā tāra' ei deśa (Madhya 7.128). One has to have the ability to deliver?

He has to be empowered. Empowered means kṛṣṇa-śakti. Kṛṣṇa-śakti vinā nahe tāra pravartana (Antya 7.11). If he's not Vaiṣṇava or Vaiṣṇavī, that empowerment is lacking. Maybe some display, but show bottle display is not the real substance. Actual substance should be there. Then the thing is substantial. It has real effect.

Otherwise, those who are vaiṣṇava-ābhāsa, they can generate śraddhā-ābhāsa in the persons that they preach to. Because the whole idea of becoming or acting as guru, the whole idea is to disseminate, to act as an agent for the dissemination of kṛṣṇa-kṛpā-śakti.

So, according to Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura in his Caitanya-śikṣāmṛta, he says that the kṛpā can be disseminated on three levels. As a sādhaka, from the stage of ruci, meaning that one is chanting śuddha-nāma, this goes along with the statement of Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī where he says that actually only the mahā-bhāgavata can have the fitness to bestow the pure name which is identical with nāmī, Kṛṣṇa Himself.

And it goes along with the understanding given by Jīva Gosvāmī where he describes that there's three different types of mahā-bhāgavatas. There's mahā-bhāgavata with both feet in the spiritual world extending his hand in the form of the ācārya-svarūpa to pull conditioned souls up to his platform, pull them out of the material world to the spiritual world. And then there's the mahā-bhāgavata who is a sādhana-siddha, means he's attained the stage of sādhya, bhāva or prema, and he's in the sādhaka-deha. So, because he's attained perfection in the realization of his sthāyi-bhāva, he's considered to have one foot in the spiritual world and one foot in the material world. And then there's the mahā-bhāgavata who has both feet in the material world but he has his eyes in the spiritual world. It means that he already knows what will be his perfection. It's just that he hasn't... In other words, he's still more or less a green mango but he can understand that he's a mango and in due course he'll be ripened.

So, that is like the sādhaka meaning, like the rāgānugā-sādhaka who is practicing, contemplating his antaś-cintita-siddha-deha, etc. from the stage of ruci. From the stage of ruci means he's still madhyama-adhikārī.

Of course, there's a statement in Bhakti-tattva-viveka by Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura that in the rāga-mārga, those who were from the stage of ruci, having ruci for rāgānugā-sādhana practices, that they are considered to be also on the lower stages of the uttama-adhikārī platform. In any case, who is chanting śuddha-nāma can bestow śuddha-nāma. So, who is chanting śuddha-nāma is a pure devotee and according to Caitanya-śikṣāmṛta, that sādhaka who is chanting śuddha-nāma, he can generate pure devotional śraddhā in the heart of any ordinary man.

And on another level, the bhāvuka or the bhāva-bhakta can immediately generate ruci. Just like if there's someone who's speaking with bhāva, then those who are hearing, he can immediately create taste in them for hearing kṛṣṇa-kathā. And then there's the premika-bhakta who can immediately bring, pull someone up to his own level.

So, if someone is acting as guru on one level, he may generate pure devotional śraddhā if he's a pure devotee. But if he's not a pure devotee yet because he's not chanting śuddha-nāma yet, then he's not going to do very much in the matter of creating pure devotional śraddhā in anyone. Likely what happens is because of his lack of clarity, he has a tendency to confuse the disciples and the disciples generally get a distorted image, get the wrong idea.

And it may take them a long time to actually come around to understanding what is the actual pure devotional siddhānta, as even a basis for their... If he has pure devotional śraddhā even, that means that he's a pure devotee in the making, so to certain extent he can understand the siddhānta and he can share that on one level or another. But still he's not considered to be empowered because the pure name only is having included all of Kṛṣṇa's antaraṅgā-śaktis. So, without having the pure name, where's the question of kṛṣṇa-śakti vinā nahe tāra pravartana? Where's the question of him having the power to propagate the saṅkīrtana movement? He's not going to be able to propagate the saṅkīrtana movement. He's not going to be able to generate, let's say, further generations, so to speak, or create further generations of pure devotees. Propagation work means to disseminate something to someone, to inculcate pure devotional śakti into the hearts of the people that come into his association.

Anyway, just to wrap that point up, that it's not a question of what kind of body, external body the soul has. That is not what qualifies one as being guru or any of these things. What qualifies a person as being guru is whether or not that person is advanced in spiritual realization. If he's a God-realized or she's a God-realized soul, then certainly there's fitness for acting as guru of anyone.

There's not a question of he or she or any of these things. These are all mundane considerations. So if we're thinking that only men can become gurus, but then the next question is, are they actually acting as guru? Are they actually Vaiṣṇava? If they're not yet Vaiṣṇava, then what is their right to act as guru? First become Vaiṣṇava, then act as Vaiṣṇava guru.

And vaiṣṇava means, there's madhyama vaiṣṇava and there's uttama vaiṣṇava. Kaniṣṭha vaiṣṇavas are not actually vaiṣṇavas. They're vaiṣṇava-prāya.

They're like vaiṣṇavas, but they're not vaiṣṇavas. So you can hardly expect to make easy advancement to the goal of life under the insufficient guidance of kaniṣṭha-adhikārīs and madhyama-adhikārīs who are not yet evolved to the śuddha-nāma bhajana platform. First chanting śuddha-nāma, at the stage of ruci and then āsakti, bhāva, prema.

They have certain rights to act as guru. Others have no right to act as guru in a real sense. A kaniṣṭha-adhikārī, vaiṣṇava in the making has certainly more right to act as guru than a māyāvādī.

If a māyāvādī is chanting the holy name and there's a kaniṣṭha bhakta chanting the semblance of nāma, māyāvādī is also chanting semblance of nāma. One is chanting pratibimba-nāmābhāsa and the other is chanting chāyā-nāmābhāsa. Who is chanting chāyā-nāmābhāsa is certainly more qualified to act as guru than who is chanting pratibimba-nāmābhāsa.

But it doesn't mean that he is actually qualified in a real way to act as guru. Who is chanting śuddha-nāma is actually fit to bestow śuddha-nāma to the disciple. And it doesn't matter who is chanting śuddha-nāma.

If a Vaiṣṇavī is chanting śuddha-nāma, then she is far more qualified and advanced than a so-called Vaiṣṇava, bhakta-prāya, who is not chanting śuddha-nāma. So it's a question of what level of empowerment, based on what degree of realization, and what level or what degree of revelation has been achieved by an individual.

Does that make sense to you?