History from the eyes of the beholder

[Guest guest]

On 10 Dec 1999, Pranada dasi wrote:

 

> > When he went to hold

> > the first initiations, wasn't he only going to initiate the men? Wasn't it

> > the women who came to him and pleaded that they too wanted to be initiated?

 

> > [i am writing only from memory as I am pressed on time to look up any

> > referrences right now].

>

> The history is that Srila Prabhupada gave women first initiation. Then

when it

> came time for second initiations he gave it to the men one day, the women the

 

> next. The women did not plead for him for first or second initiation.

 

Here's a somewhat different history, as told by Pradyumna Prabhu to one of

his Godbrothers and recounted thus:

 

[Pradyumna] was at the first brahmana initiation on 26 2nd Avenue. There

were no women, only men, initiated. SP didn't want to give to women (it's

against the sastra--Manu-samhita in particular). The women got upset.

Jadurani and others (who?) boycotted the temple for a few days. SP, not

wanting to have an insurrection in ISKCON right at the onset, decided to

have a second fire sacrifice and gave some of the women like Jadurani "2nd

initiation," but with no thread.

 

We discussed about it, and [Pradyumna] agreed that SP never wanted to give

them dvija, but did so as a temporary stop-gap measure only. SP has said

that just as kunkum is the emblem (linga) of a married women in Vedic

culture, the pavitra is the linga of a dvija. No thread, no dvija. It

appears to me that similar to Ambarisa

Maharaja being faced with the dilemma to break fast yet not insult Durvasa,

SP simultaneously gave and yet did not give women 2nd initiation. I have

discussed this before, and we have learned that in Sri-sampradaya women are

not given savitri-gayatri but other mantras only, so that they can do

household puja.

 

It is my understanding that by SP not giving the thread to the ladies, it

would be understood later by more mature and learned devotees (who would

understand Vedic culture better than in those early days of 26 2nd Avenue)

that he really didn't

intend or want to give dvija to ladies, since it is forbidden in

Manu-samhita. But because of the kala-desha-patra, he had to temporarily

compromise with his female disciples. But with maturity it should become

apparent that it was not his real desire. SP has stated that Manu-samhita is

the lawbook for mankind, and it is plain to see that, according to Manu,

dvija is not given to ladies. (In India he would never have faced such a

dilemma.)

 

I repeat: SP never intended nor wanted to give ladies dvija--it is against

the sastra. That is why he never gave them the upavita. This is the clue

that he left us as to his real desire. If he had actually wanted to give

dvija to the ladies, he would have invited them in the first place and given

the thread as well.

 

[end]