Female Guru

“Can a female be guru?” is a frequently asked question. Such a question did not arise in the minds of people a few decades ago because people in general, and in India specifically, were clear about their identities and roles. With the advancement of technology and science, our lifestyles have changed drastically. This has also brought about an immense change in our identities and roles. There are no watertight boundaries for gender-based roles and responsibilities. The general understanding is that all human beings are equal and that there should be no discrimination on the basis of gender. Although such is the trend, yet we see that there are certain areas in which a particular gender seems prominent.

The post of guru is generally dominated by males. Not only that, there is an unwritten belief in the minds of many that only males can function as gurus. Some are making an attempt to turn this into an ordinance. Is this valid?  

The answer depends on what sort of pramāṇa one accepts. There is a popular saying in Sanskrit, mānādhīnā meya-siddhir māna-siddhistu lakṣaṇāt, “Knowledge of a subject depends on a valid means and a valid means is understood from its definition.” Therefore, the first thing to be ascertained is the valid means of acquiring knowledge or pramāṇa. Those who do not accept scriptural authority, śāstra-pramāṇa, will reply to the above question on the basis of logic, human rights, and/or personal experience. Such replies do not concern us. A guru means a spiritual teacher, and spirituality is not subject to logic, human rights, or to one’s empirical experience. Śāstra is the only pramāṇa for spirituality. Therefore, we will investigate the above question solely on the basis of śāstra.

Different schools accept different śāstras as pramāṇas. As Gauḍīya Vaiṣnavas, our pramāṇas for spiritual subjects are the bhakti-śāstras; among them, Bhāgavata Purāṇa is supreme. Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī has categorically established this in Tattva Sandarbha (Anucchedas 9-29). One may read that part for understanding why we accept Bhāgavata Purāṇa as the supreme pramāṇa. Besides Bhāgavata Purāṇa, we accept Upaniṣads, Vedānta-sūtra, Bhagavad Gītā and the books of our predecessor ācāryas, such as the Gosvāmīs of Vṛndāvana, as pramāṇa. The latter are primarily based upon Bhāgavata Purāṇa. We also accept  Purāṇas,  Smṛtis and Āgamas that do not contradict Bhāgavata Purāṇa as pramāṇa. Anything that goes against the spirit of Bhāgavata Purāṇa is not acceptable to Gaudīya Vaiṣnavas. So, let us investigate the above question based on this main pramāṇa.

There are various references to guru in Bhāgavata Purāṇa but there is no prohibition against a female becoming guru. However, one may argue that all references to guru are in the masculine gender i.e., the word “guru,” which has been used repeatedly is in the masculine gender. There is no usage of the feminine gender form, gurvī, anywhere in Bhāgavata Purāṇa. One may argue that this proves that a female guru is not recommended in Bhāgavata Purāṇa. Similarly, Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, the smṛti for Gaudīya Vaiṣṇavas, lists the qualification of a guru in verses 1.38 to 1.55. Here again there is no mention of a female guru. The same analysis can be applied to other śāstra such as Bhagavad Gītā. One could argue that these pramāṇas conclusively show that śāstra prescribes only a male guru, and thus a female is not qualified to be guru.

Such a conclusion, however, is not proper. First of all, there is no explicit prohibition for a female to become guru in any of these śāstras. Secondly, when the word “guru,” which is in the masculine gender, is used, it is inclusive of a female guru. When the characteristics of a class are described, the description is given for a single gender, but it similarly applies to the other gender also. This is the standard principle used in Sanskrit grammar—prātipadika-grahaṇe liṅga-viśiṣṭasyāpi grahaṇam (Vyādi-paribhāṣā 25, cited in Harināmāmṛta-vyākaraṇam 2.73, 6.32). For example, if one wants to describe the qualities of a dog of a particular breed, then it is common to use the male gender word “dog.” It is understood that this word is also applicable to a female of that particular breed. A gender-specific description will be given if there are differences in the characteristics of the male and female pertinent to that specific topic. Therefore, when it is said that a guru should be an expert in śāstra and in realization of the Absolute (śābde pare ca niṣṇātam SB 11.3.21), or that he should be a jñānī and tattvadarśī (BG 4.34), this certainly does not mean that it is applicable only to a male guru. The statement is applicable to anyone who takes the post of guru regardless of gender. For example, in Hari-bhakti-vilāsa (1.59-63), although the qualities of a disciple are described by the use of the masculine form, such qualities obviously apply to a female disciple also. The same is true of the description of the qualities of a devotee given in many places in scripture. Such descriptions apply to every devotee irrespective of gender. Similarly, qualifications for a guru as described in scripture are applicable to both male and female gurus. In these descriptions, there is no intention to prohibit a female from becoming a guru.

Amarakośa (2.6.14), a well-respected lexicon of Sanskrit, gives separate words for the wife of an ācārya and for a female ācāryā; the word ācārya is a synonym for the word “guru.” Amarakośa refers to the wife of an ācārya asācāryānī, whereas a female ācārya is called ācāryā. Similarly, it calls a female teacher of a part of Veda upādhyāyā or upādhyāyī. The wife of an upādhyāya, however, is called an upādhyāyānī (Harināmāmṛta-vyākaraṇam 7.225, 226). This is also stated in Siddhānta-kaumudi (505, Pāṇiṇi-sutra 4.1.49). Separate words for the wives of an ācārya and for an upādhyāya, and for females who are themselves ācāryās and upādhyāyās, would not exist in the Sanskrit lexicon and grammar if female gurus did not exist in the past.

Furthermore, every Sanskrit word has meaning, and there is an eternal relation between the word (śabda) and its referent. This is stated by Patañjali in his Mahābhāṣya, which is the most authentic commentary on the Pāṇini-sūtras and is accepted on par with the sūtras. In the entire Sanskrit literature, Patañjali’s commentary is the only one calledmahābhāṣya, while others are called bhāṣya. Patañjali writes, siddhe śabdārtha-sambandhe lokto’rtha-prayukte śabda-prayoge śāstreṇa dharma-niyamo yathā laukika-vaidikeṣu (1.1 Paspaśā, Mahābhāṣya). Here he clearly states that the relation between a word and its referent is siddha, or eternal. This is also understood from Yoga-sūtra (3.17). Bhartṛhari explains that a śabda has the natural capacity to express its referent, just as our senses have the natural ability to sense their respective objects:

indriyāṇāṁ sva-viṣayeṣu anādir yogyatā yathā
anādirarthaiḥ śabdānām sambandho yogyatā tathā

(Vakya-padīyam Pada-sambandha 29) 

Nyāya-sūtra (2.11.56) also says, sāmayikatvāt śabdārthasambandhasya, “The relation between a word and its reference is conventional.” From this, it is understood that there must have been female gurus in the past because a corresponding word exists for them in the Sanskrit lexicon as well as in the grammar. Thus, it would be wrong to conclude that female gurus did not exist in the past. 

A pūrvapakśa can be raised for the above logic. There are statements in Bhāradvāja Saṁhitā which categorically forbid a woman to be a guru. The relevant verses are as follows [Note: The translation of the verses from Bhāradvāja Saṁhitā are not mine. They were sent by a questioner.] 

na jātu mantra-dā nārī na śūdro nāntarodbhavaḥ |
nābhiśasto na patitaḥ
 kāma-kāmo ’py akāminaḥ ||42||

Even then, a woman, a śūdra, and an antyaja can never act as initiating gurus, nor can anyone who is accused of a great sin or is fallen. And an aspiring disciple who is already accomplished in detachment (akāmī) should never accept a guru who is infected with material desires. 

striyaḥ śūdrādayaś caiva bodhayeyur hitāhitam |
yathārhaṁ mānanīyāś ca
 nārhanty ācāryatāṁ kvacit ||43||

Women, śūdras, etc., can give ethical and moral instructions and are also worthy of respect as per their qualifications and conditions but are not entitled to get the position of ācārya

These statements seem to clearly prohibit a woman from taking the role of an initiating guru. My reply to this is that if this prohibition was acceptable to our previous ācāryas, then why did they not refer to these verses? In the first vilāsa of Hari-bhakti-vilāsa, there is an elaborate discussion about the characteristics of both qualified and unqualified gurus. However, there is no prohibition mentioned for a woman to become guru, neither in the original text nor in its commentary by Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī. Similarly, Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī discusses both the qualified and unqualified guru in Bhakti Sandarbha. But he makes no statement prohibiting a woman from becoming a guru. We also do not find any such statement in the writings of other ācāryas of our sampradaya, such as Nārāyaṇa Bhaṭṭa, Śrī Kavi Karṇapūra Gosvāmī, Śri Viṣvanātha Cakravarti, and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa.

Moreover, if we accept Bhāradvāja Saṁhitā as our pramāṇa, then we would have also to accept that it allows only a brāhmaṇa to be a guru. It says:

prapitsur mantra-nirataṁ prājñaṁ hitaparaṁ śucim |
praśāntaṁ niyataṁ vṛttau
 bhajed dvija-varaṁ gurum ||38||

“Thus, one who is desirous of surrendering with faith, should take shelter of a guru who is always engaged in chanting the mantra and is a knower of bhakti-siddhānta (prājñam), is always engaged, without any desire for personal benefit, in showering mercy on fallen souls (hita-param), who is always pure in heart or free of sins, peaceful, and always committed to his prescribed duties (ordained by his guru or by varṇāśrama). Such a guru should be the best of the twice-born (dvija-varam meaning brāhmaṇa).”

The book also defines who is a brāhmaṇa in the following verse from Bhāradvāja Saṁhitā (cited from the Wisdom Library):

jāta-karmādibhir-yastu saṃkāraiḥ saṃskṛtaḥ śuciḥ
vedādhyayana-sampannaḥ ṣaḍ saṭ karmasvasthitaḥ
śaucācārasthitaḥ samyag vighasāśī gurupriyaḥ
nityabralī satyaparaḥ sa vai brāhmaṇa ucyate

[Bharadvāja Muni said, “O best of the twice-born, Ṛṣi among the brāhmaṇas, best of the orators of Vedic knowledge, kindly instruct us in the differences between brāhmaṇaskṣatriyasvaiśyas, and śūdras.” Bhṛgu Muni replied]:

“One whose birth and subsequent works have all been purified by the appropriate saṁskāras, who has the qualities of purity and cleanliness, who is devoted to Vedic study, who performs worship of the Supreme Lord, Viṣṇu, and who instructs others in that worship, who is a paragon of the six activities of a brāhmaṇa, whose behavior is never impure, who eats the remnants of his guru’s prasāda, who is dear to the guru, who always carefully follows his vows, and who is fixed in the truth, is known as a brāhmaṇa.” (14.96 Bhāradvāja Saṁhitā)

According to this definition of a brāhmaṇa, the majority of male gurus of the Gauḍīya sampradaya would not meet the qualifications. The verse requires a guru to have undergone the various saṁskāras, beginning from one’s birth. These saṁskāras are described in smṛti-śāstras. They also require birth in a brāhmaṇa family. According to the smṛtis, these saṁskāras cannot be performed for one who is not born to brāhmaṇa parents. The above verse from Bhāradvāja Saṁhitā also talks about the six activities of a brāhmaṇa: studying śāstra, teaching śāstra, performing yajña for oneself, performing yajña for others as a priest, giving charity, and accepting charity. If we apply this definition of a brāhmaṇa, then most gurus of the Gauḍīya sampradāya would not qualify. If, however, we do not accept this definition, then we apply śāstra selectively. That is considered a defect—ardha-kukkuṭī-nyāya. This means we accept what is convenient and reject what is troublesome.

Instead of searching for statements in Vedic literature to support one’s views, one should carefully study one’s tradition and the foundational books of one’s sampradāya. As mentioned before, there are no statements in Bhāgavata Purāṇa that prohibit women from becoming guru. Even when our ācāryas, namely Śrī Sanātana Gosvāmī and Śrī Jīva Goswamī, extensively discuss the qualifications of a guru, they do not cite any verses that prohibit women from becoming guru. Anyone with basic Sanskrit grammar knowledge would not misinterpret the masculine use of the word guru to indicate an exclusion of female gurus; rather, the word refers to both masculine and feminine genders as a class.

Ma Yashoda

It is a fact that in various Gauḍīya Vaiṣnava traditional lineages, there have been many female gurus who gave dīkṣā. Some of them were very prominent but there have also been many others who may not be well-known outside their particular lines. For example, women have always been gurus in the Advaita vaṁśa, extending from Advaita Ācārya’s wife Sītā Ṭhākurānī down to this very day. Such female gurus mostly functioned within the family, giving dīkṣā to their sons or daughters-in-law, although now there are women functioning as dīkṣā gurus who are not the direct descendants of Śrī Advaita Ācārya. Probably the most prominent female Gauḍīya guru after Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu was Nityānanda Prabhu’s wife Jāhnavī Devī. Virabhadra (or Viracandra) Gosvāmī, who is described in Gaura-gaṇoddeśa dīpikā as an avatāra of Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, took dīkṣā from her. In my own paramparā from Śrī Gadādhara Paṇḍita, there are four female gurus, ācaryās.

In conclusion, neither the Gauḍīya Vaiṣnava tradition nor the Gauḍīya Vaiṣnava pramāṇas oppose women from acting as guru. The qualifications of a guru—deep knowledge of scriptures and experience of Param Tattvado not depend upon gender.

Notify me of new articles

Comments ( 13 )
  1. Pancajanya

    One evidence used to show that women cannot be gurus is a statement in a purport to SB 4.12.32 stating, ”Sunīti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother, could not become Dhruva Mahārāja’s dīkṣā-guru.” If such a restriction is not stated in the foundational books of the Gaudiya sampradaya I would assume that it is stated elsewhere in some other Vedic literature. But, as you pointed out in the article, one should be ready to also accept other restrictions such as brahminical qualification beginning from birth and only such Brahmanas being qualified to be guru, which will see many persons immediately disqualified from their post under such restrictions. This leaves me to accept the statement in the purport as the author’s opinion on the matter, or that he may have had some other reason for this statement in the context of the story of Dhruva, but certainly does not warrant as sastra praman against women gurus.

    • Svayambhu Dasa

      Yes, you are right in Srila Cakravarti’s purport there is no such statement. It must have been from another author belonging to another group of practitioners. Srila Cakravarti’s purport simply says :” Agam means “not attained by anyone.” Trivistapam means “the abode of Vishnu”.

    • Premanidhi dasa

      There is another statement from the same author where he contradicts his own purport.

      Prof. O’Connell: Is it possible, Swamiji, for a woman to be a guru in the line of disciplic succession?

      Prabhupada: Yes. Jahnava-devi was Nityananda’s wife. She became. If she is able to go to the highest perfection of life, why it is not possible to become guru? But, not so many. Actually one who has attained the perfection, she can become guru. But man or woman, unless one has attained the perfection…. Yei krishna-tattva-vetta sei guru haya. The qualification of guru is that he must be fully cognizant of the science of Krishna. Then he or she can become guru. Yei krishna-tattva-vetta, sei guru haya. In our material world is it any prohibition that woman cannot become professor? If she is qualified, she can become professor. What is the wrong there? She must be qualified. That is the position. So similarly, if the woman understands Krishna consciousness perfectly, she can become guru.” (Conversation 6/18/76)

  2. Madhava Das

    As always this article blew me away, and I am humbled in the light of the knowledge of an apparently, true sage. Completely aside from the topic at hand however, I found a possible contradiction.

    In the article you wrote:
    “…then we apply śāstra selectively. That is considered a defect—ardha-kukkuṭī-nyāya. This means we accept what is convenient and reject what is troublesome.”

    In the article you very conveniently pull reference from the works of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur to support your position. However, from the lack of official statement from you, on his installations in the Gaudiya Lineage (sanyasi, gayatri, bhagavat parampara etc.) one has to assume you do not support the things he founded.

    Some would say this itself is logic of accepting half a hen, this time in regards to a Pure Devotee.

    Accepting his empowered acts (in his work) but rejecting the philosophy from which the power came.

    ekete viśvāsa, anye nā kara sammāna
    “ardha-kukkuṭī-nyāya” tomāra pramāṇa

    Shouldn’t this statement apply to SASTRA, SADHU, and GURU?
    I would really like an email back about this please.

    • T. Krsna dasa

      He is quoting a *scriptural verse* from BSST’s works, Bharadvaja sanhita. BSST *did not* compose that verse.

    • Babaji Post author

      I did not quote something conveniently. I quoted that verse specifically because the verse is from Bharadvaja Samhita.
      The verses that prohibit a female to be a guru or rather a gurvī are cited from Bhardvaja-samhita. Therefore, I am drawing attention to the fact that if females are to be prohibited from being a gurvī on the basis of Bhardvaja-samhita, then one must also consider what Bharadvaja-samhita says about a male guru.
      Other than that I had no other intention. I personally do not have Bharadvaja-samhita, therefore, I gave the reference of the verse from Gaudiya-kanthahara, which is compiled by BSST.
      In this article, I am not debating the view of BSST on who is a brahmmana etc. So please do not misunderstand me. The article discusses the topic of “Female guru” and nothing else.

  3. We have seen in some traditions that female disciples and their male guru’s fall in love with one another. That is disturbing in the community, off course. Therefore it would be a good habit if women primarily take initiation from female guru’s and men primarily from male guru’s.
    Thats just my humble opinion, based on what I have seen in various Gaudiya societies.

    • Premanidhi dasa

      @ Premananda das

      If a male Guru falling in love with his female disciple , that means he was never a Guru in the first place. By the way a genuine disciple doesn’t see the Guru as male or female,he sees him as a devotee of the Lord.

  4. Cont: unless the guru and/or the disciple are gay or lesbian. In that case, there should be another consideration, off course.

  5. SCooty Ram

    Pranams.
    Aptly put “Such a question did not arise in the minds of people a few decades ago because people in general, and in India specifically, were clear about their identities and roles.” Not only has times changed, discussion about such topics in todays world might brand questioner as castiest , racist etc.

    sistAchara more often settles any such confusions and if in gaudiya tradition women have become gurus, then that settles the matter with no room for argument.
    “The qualifications of a guru—deep knowledge of scriptures and experience of Param Tattva—do not depend upon gender.”yei krsna-tattva-vetta sei guru haya! In my opinion, this puts the arguments to rest in favor of VDG in its initial review.

    Since pramanas were shown , I am sharing few items requesting for clarifications:

    HBV 1.38 to 1.55 referred in this article mentions veda adhyayana, mantra homa activities as qualities of guru which apparently are exclusive to males, unless gaudiyas position is that women who have become vaishnavas are also eligible for learning vedas, performing homas, purasarana etc.SB position is different on stri adhikara to srutis.

    | avadAtaH shuddhaH pAtityAdi-doSha-rahito’nvayo vaMsho yasya, sad-vaMsha-jAta ity arthaH|| – Women do not have samskaras and hence the reference to vamsa etc would be relevant to a person born in sat kula and has undergone those samskaras.
    brahmavAdI | vedAdhyApakaH |
    Teacher of vedas.
    evaM vipra eva guruH syAd ity AyAtam ||
    Only vipra could be gurus. (would this mean women who are vipras are only allowed and not other women?)
    sarvaM dIkShA-vidhAnAdikaM jAnAtIti tathA saH||
    Rituals regarding diksha perhaps has vedic parts including recital of vedic mantras in which case it might be restricted to males. If diksha process has no vedic items then this does not apply.
    anyatra prAtilomya-doShApatteH || Would pratiloma apply to women dealing with men? Not sure.

    nAdhikuryAt, adhikAraM na kuryAt | yad vA, strIbhyo’dhikAraM na dadyAd ity arthaH || 11.704 – Could this be extended to this topic as well?
    Following reference on all being eligible for getting diksha with some extra rules based on gender etc.
    striyaH pati-vratAsh cAnye pratilomAnulomajAH ||
    lokAsh cANDAla-paryantAH sarve’py atrAdhikAriNaH ||198||
    gurush ca siddha-sAdhyAdi-mantra-dAne vicArayet |
    sva-kulAny akulatvaM ca bAla-prauDhatvam eva ca ||199||
    strI-puM-napuMsakatvaM ca rAshi-nakShatra-melanam |
    supta-prabodha-kAlaM ca tathA R^iNa-dhanAdikam ||200|| from HBV 1st vilasa. If stris who are vaishnavas have become par with male brahmanas, why additional rules applied to them based on gender?

    Confusion about VDG is not seemingly limited to Women but also if women born in brahmin families must also be factored if HBV gives room for gender based classification.

    Alsi if I may add ,in response to ” Śrī Jīva Gosvāmī discusses both the qualified and unqualified guru in Bhakti Sandarbha. But he makes no statement prohibiting a woman from becoming a guru. ” all references to Stri is clubbed with stri-sudra in HBV and other works of gaudiyas acharyas and no where while they make an attempt to give women adhikara for bhakti made any attempt to exclusively specify women could become gurus. Hence it demands one to look for women diksha gurus in much earlier times during or pre-caitanya periods.

    Dasan

  6. KT

    Can any specific example of a woman acting a diksa-guru be found in the Puranas, Itihasas, or Upanisads (or any other text accepted by Sri Jiva Gosvami as sastra)? Can any example be found in the history of the Madhva, Ramanuja, Visnu Svami, or Nimbarka sampradayas?

  7. Srinivas

    There seems to be some pramana in the Sandilya samhita regarding allowing a Brahmana woman to give diksha in Vaishnava mantras. I didnt go through the text and hence cant confirm the source.

  8. Radhapada Das

    Here is the branch of Sri Nityananda known as the Baghnapara Goswamis of which Bhaktivinod Thakur’s guru lineage was from. There were women diksa gurus in the parampara.

    Jahnava Mata
    Ramacandra Gosvami
    Rajavallabha Gosvami
    Krishnacandra Gosvami
    Rudrosvara Gosvami
    Dayarama Gosvami
    Mahesvari Gosvamini
    Guna Manjari Gosvamini
    Ramamani Gosvamini
    Yajnesvara Gosvami
    Vipin Vihari Gosvami
    Bhakti Vinoda Thakura
    Lalita Prasada Thäkura

  • Satyanarayana Dasa

    Satyanarayana Dasa
  • Daily Bhakti Byte

    Most of our programming comes from our parents, especially our mother. If our mother had negative emotions, or some sort of mental disorder, the baby gets programmed like that in the womb. The mother is making the software (samskara) of the baby. That is why the mother is called the first Guru.

    — Babaji Satyanarayana Dasa
  • Videos with Bababji

  • Payment

  • Subscribe

  • Article Archive

  • Chronological Archive

© 2017 JIVA.ORG. All rights reserved.