Saying One Thing and Meaning Another:

A Critique of Badrinarayana Swamis On Saving the Soul of ISKCON paper

In his paper, I show how Badrinarayana Swami, in his recent On Saving the Soul of ISKCON
article, says one thing but means another. I claim that while Badrinarayana Swami calls for an
honest and in-depth discussion about several controversial issues in ISKCON, he in fact
desires that everyone endorses his distinct interpretation of Srila Prabhupadas teachings on these
issues. Badrinarayana Swamis paper contains hidden premises, contradictions,
misrepresentations of Srila Prabhupada, misrepresentations of devotees who think differently
from him, as well as appeals to emotion. After illustrating examples of these deficiencies, I
conclude by suggesting that Badrinarayana Swami express his explicit objective, as opposed to
hiding it behind a curtain of professed open-mindedness.1

Throughout his On Saving the Soul of ISKCON paper, Badrinarayana Swami - with a tone of
innocence - invites the reader to an open discussion about topics which he considers long
over-due. He writes, The purpose of this paper is to spark debate and to ask questions
[emphasis mine]. He adds that his paper is intended to bring to the fore a discussion that has
been avoided for too long. He warns that if current trends within ISKCON are not addressed,
the members of ISKCON will be doomed down the path to a slow death of assimilation and
irrelevance. Badrinarayana Swamis fervent hope," he claims, is that we will agree that we
need to have an honest and in-depth discussion of these questions.
Have ISKCON devotees failed to address the issues that Badrinarayana Swami brings up? Is
Badrinarayana Swami unaware that devotees world-wide, for at least two decades, have been
discussing at long length about womens role in Krishna consciousness, about female dikshagurus, about cultural integration and about other similar topics? For decades, devotees have
exchanged views about these topics: on many websites, blogs, and internet discussion groups; in
printed articles, in printed books and in recorded lectures. Globally, different groups of ISKCON
devotees have been addressing these issues, with their own unique interpretation, for many years
already. ISKCON today contains a multiplicity of competing interpretations on different issues.
Is Badrinarayana Swami in denial of this fact? When he asks for an honest discussion, is he
1

Note: I recognize that Badrinarayana Swami is a godbrother of my spiritual master. Therefore I owe him similar
respect that I owe my guru. At the same time, I have joined ISKCON as much as Badrinarayana Swami has joined
ISKCON. In this sense, the fate of ISKCON, which he refers to, is as much my concern as it is his. Furthermore,
this paper deals with logic and philosophy. Srila Prabhupada was uncompromising in this regard. Badrinarayana
Swami preaches that we should follow our founder-acharyas example. I am trying to do so herewith. I would also
like to mention that no individual devotee nor project like Krishna West is comissioning or endorsing this paper,
which consists of my thoughts alone.

maybe meaning to say that ISKCON members have failed to adopt his views? All ISKCON
members do not unanimously agree with Badrinarayana Swami. This, perhaps, is his concern.

If Badrinarayana Swami wants to bring to the fore a discussion that is long overdue, we would
expect his paper to present an objective synopsis of the varying competing interpretations which
already exist on the issues at hand. Badrinarayana Swami could write, Regarding female
diksha-gurus, some devotees argue this way, with this evidence, while other devotees argue that
way, with that evidence. Lets have a discussion about it. His responsibility would be to act as a
facilitator who remains neutral regarding his own personal stance. Otherwise, if he leans even
slightly on one side of a particular issue, how can his intent be described as a desire to bring forth
an honest discussion (especially when such a discussion has already been taking place for
decades)? For instance, if Badrinarayana Swami is convinced (and he is) that women should
never become diksha-gurus, why would Maharaja waste his time trying to bring forth a
discussion on this topic? When we look at the content of Badrinarayana Swamis paper, we can
only conclude, as I will summarize next, that his mind is indeed fully made up on these issues.
Hence an honest discussion is not what Badrinarayana Swami wants. An honest debate,
perhaps. But not a discussion.

Specific views
As per his paper, Badrinarayana Swami believes in the following specific views:
1) Allowing women in ISKCON to act as diksa-gurus will spell the death of ISKCON.
2) Encouraging the Krishna West project will spell the death of ISKCON.
3) As a result, we will not be able to offer the world the alternative social model (whatever
Badrinarayana Swami means by that).
4) We must give zero consideration or thought about homosexuals in ISKCON.
5) Unless all ISKCON members share the same opinion as Badrinarayana Swami about these
issues, then all ISKCON members will have no cohesive, unifying vision.
6) All male ISKCON devotees, regardless of ashram or varna, must have shaved heads and must
wear robes.
7) What we see in India today represents the ideal of what Vedic culture looks like.

Knit-picked quotes by Srila Prabhupada that justify Badrinarayana Swamis specific views
Badrinarayana Swami presents only one-sided quotes by Srila Prabhupada in his attempt to
establish the above-mentioned views. What follows are a few examples, for which I then present

one or two counter-quotes by Srila Prabhupada. My objective is not to enter into a debate with
Badrinarayana Swami on these points. My objective is to show to the reader that for every quote
that Badrinarayana Swami presents as his supposed undefeatable proof, one can present counterarguments and counter-quotes with ease. I thus put into question Badrinarayana Swamis alleged
desire to have an honest discussion.

1) Badrinarayana Swami claims that the summer of 1975 was a summer in which Srila
Prabhupada (in America) had one combative interview after another, with him [Srila
Prabhupada] not backing up an inch [regarding his views on women]. The term one after
another implies great frequency. Out of ninety days (the length of a typical, three-month-long
summer in America), one would expect that Srila Prabhupada must have spoken at least dozens
of times to reporters if he indeed had one combative interview after another. According to the
Folio Vedabase, during the entire ninety-day period from June 1975 to (and including) August
1975, Srila Prabhupada engaged in four recorded interviews/Press conferences,2 two of which
were on the same day. These figures hardly do justice to the term One after another. To be fair,
Srila Prabhupada did say what many would consider to be heavy statements about women
during these four interviews (and on morning walks during that summer). However, not only
does Badrinarayana Swami inflate the so-called frequency of Srila Prabhupadas interviews (i.e.,
one after another translating into only four interviews in a span of ninety days), but he also
fails to inform the reader that the summer of 1975 was also the summer during which Srila
Prabhupada said that women could be temple presidents and that women could go to university.3

2) Badrinarayana Swami claims that Srila Prabhupada wanted all his male followers to shave
up. Badrinarayana Swami does not mention, however, the initiation ceremony of Ambarish
prabhu (Alfred Ford), during which his hair was grown out and clean. Srila Prabhupada said
nothing. Rather, he smiled, as seen on the photograph in which he hands Ambarish prabhu his
beads).

One television interview in Chicago on July 9th, 1975, one press conference on the same July 9th, 1975, one press
conference in San Francisco on July 16th, 1975, and one press conference in Dallas on July 29th.
3

Mrs. Wax: Could a woman be a temple president?

Prabhupada: Yes, why not?
(Room conversation, July 5th, 1975, Chicago)

Dharmadhyaksha: Also, should this college have men and women, or just men?
Prabhupada: No, why? Everyone. We have no such discrimination.
(Room conversation, June 22nd, 1975, Los Angeles)

Similary, Hari Sauri prabhu describes an initiation ceremony in Germany wherein two German
devotees had similar clean, grown out hair during the ritual. Srila Prabhupada approved. These
are incidents that occured on the most important day in a devotees life (i.e, the day of his
initation). If Srila Prabhupada was so easygoing regarding the hair-length of his financially
independent householder devotees4 on their initiation day, we can imagine what his stance for
them was on the other, ordinary days of the year. Badrinarayana Swami similarly does not inform
the reader that Srila Prabhupada exclaimed, Ah! This is what I always wanted! American
Krishnas! when he saw a photograph of Balavanta prabhu, with groomed, grown-out hair,
preaching in the arena of American politics.5
3) Badrinarayana Swami cites several quotes in which Srila Prabhupada pits blind, strong
America against weak, wise India. Yet Badrinarayana Swami fails to quote statements by
Srila Prabhupada such as, Oh, India, India. Don't talk of India! Talk of philosophy.6 Similarly,
4

During Srila Prabhupadas manifest pastimes, the number of financially independent householders in ISKCON was
extremely low, almost non-existent. During that time, practically all devotees (including the few householders) lived
as financially dependent full-time brahmacharis or brahmacharinis. These figures explain why we do not have
many examples of how Srila Prabhupada dealt with financially independent householder disciples. Notwithstanding,
the examples of Ambarish prabhu and of the two German devotees quoted above are enough to prove that Srila
Prabhupada did not inflexibly require that his male disciples shave up.
5

See Satsvarupa Goswamis remembrances of Srila Prabhupada.

In Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers, chapter six.

Badrinarayana Swami criticizes those who believe that Krishna consciousness, like a chameleon,
can express itself differently according to varying cultural milieus. Here again, Badrinarayana
Swami fails to remind the reader of Srila Prabhupadas purport to Srimad Bhagavatam (8.4.54),
which reads, One has to consider the particular time, country and conveniences. What is
convenient in India may not be convenient in the Western countries.

4) Badrinarayana Swami cites Srila Prabhupada as stressing the wearing of (saffron) robes, and
that shaven-headed brahmacharis wearing such robes resemble Vaikuntha angels. But
Badrinarayana Swami avoids to also cite Srila Prabhupadas numerous quotes to the effect that
dress is immaterial, that we are not concerned with dress, that one can become Krishna
conscious in a suit a tie.7 Badrinarayana Swami fails to remind us that, as followers of Lord
Caitanya, our objective is Goloka Vrindavan - not Vaikuntha. In Goloka Vrindavan, nobody has a
shaved head. In Goloka Vrindavan, there are no brahmacharis.8

My point, again, is not to enter into a polemic of quoting and counter-quoting. My point is to
show that Badrinarayana Swamis paper is not balanced. The quotes by Srila Prabhupada that
Badrinarayana Swami uses are one-sided. Such lack of well-roundedness and impartiality in his
selection of quotes again makes me doubt his appeal to have an honest discussion.

False premise of either/or

Badrinarayana Swami repeatedly sets up an aleatory dichotomy: ISKCON can only present
either 1) a philosophy, or 2) a way of life. My question is why either/or? Indeed, why can
ISKCON not present a philosophy and a way of life? Besides, what does Badrinarayana Swami
mean by way of life? From his paper, what he means by way of life points to a lifestyle
which is wholly outside of mainstream society (i.e., off the grid, self-sufficiency, rural life,
etc). But Badrinarayana Swami fails to remind the reader that historically, the vaishnavas were
world-embracing. They operated in society, and yet they were not assimilated (as
Badrinarayana Swami fears). Vaishnavas have always changed society from within. Examples of
such world-embracing Vaishnavism abounds in ISKCON (and in other Gaudiya groups) today.
ISKCON has many doctors, businessmen, lawyers, teachers, nurses, artists, government
7

See the Folio for the exact reference to these quotes, which I cite practically verbatim. Also see Sacinandana
Swamis Memories of Srila Prabhupada. Also see my compilation of all of Srila Prabhupadas statements on dresscode.
8

So much for the idea that imitating how Lord Vishnu dresses in Vaikuntha earns us devotional bonus points down
here on Earth.

employees, etc These devotees are all in the world, living in urban settings. Yet their
Krishna consciousness is doing just fine. Tulasi Gabbard (in spite of her questionable views on
abortion) is, I think, a powerful example of urban, in-the-world Vaishnavism.

Misrepresenting other devotees and their points of view

Badrinarayana Swami has the perspicacity to stereotype all the advocates of female dikshagurus. He claims that their endeavor to push for the cause rests on one underlying objective,
namely to strive to accomplish a type of social engineering. How does Badrinarayana Swami
know what are the inner motivations of every advocate of female diksha-gurus worldwide? He
must be very connected with Paramatma. Did Badrinarayana Swami consider that perhaps the
underlying objective for pushing for female diksha-gurus is nothing other than the desire to
establish the correct siddhanta and thus please the previous acharyas and Lord Chaitanya?
Furthermore, Badrinarayana Swami misrepresents the advocates of the Krishna West project by
claiming that they supposedly deny that Vedic culture existed (or exists), that Krishna ate specific
foods and that He dressed in specific ways. First of all, not all Krishna West devotees think alike.
But even if they did, one can easily counter Badrinarayana Swamis warped misrepresentation by
asking whether or not modern clothes and non-Indian satvik food, once offered with bhakti to
Lord Krishna, become Vedic by the very act of offering. We may remind Badrinarayana
Swami that pujaris in Sri Rangam (Tamil Nadu) offer to the deity certain types of food
preparations that are incomparable to, say, those food offerings that pujaris in Manipur State
offer to the Lord. Similarly, the famous Pathan vaishnavas mentioned in Caitanya Caritamrita
surely dressed themselves differently from Pundarika Vidyanidhi, from King Pratapradura, from
Kolavecha Sridhara, or from Haridas Thakura. Vedic culture certainly exists. What is Vedic
culture is, and what does Vedic culture look like, today, in the age of globalization, is a
complex question. Should we have an honest discussion about it?

Contradictions
Badrinarayana Swami makes several contradictions in his paper:
- On the one hand, he admits that there have been (and there continues to be) debates about
female diksa-gurus and about Krishna West. On the other hand he claims that we have failed
to discuss these issues. This brings me to my repeated observation: have we failed to discuss
these issues, or have we failed to suppress anyone who happens to disagree with Badrinarayana
Swamis specific views?

- Badrinarayana Swami calls for honest discussion. Not only does the content of his paper
reveal that this is not what he wants, but Badrinarayana Swamis own actions disclose a
mentality that is opposed to welcoming an honest discussion. Here I consciously diverge
outside of the content of his paper for a short while to prove this point. A few months ago, on
his own website, Badrinarayana Swami publicly insulted one of his senior ISKCON sannyasi/
initiating guru godbrothers. This godbrother of his happens to hold different views than he
does.9 Moreover, and around that same time, Badrinarayana Swami insisted that the temple
president in one of his GBC zones forbid this same senior godbrother from preaching there. He
went as far as trying to get this senior devotee banned from ISKCON (something that he is still
trying to do today). The temple president refused to obey Badrinarayana Swamis orders,
however. He and the other temple authorities vetoed Badrinarayana Swamis instructions and
instead invited that senior devotee to speak at the temple. If Badrinarayana Swami is so much
interested in having an honest discussion, why does he try to boycott the preaching of a
godbrother who has different views from his?

Appeal to emotion
Badrinarayana Swami makes hollow appeals to emotion, thus reinforcing the false premises that
he set up. For example, at the end of his paper, he asks the rhetorical question, What if we had a
top-standard education system? In other words, Badrinarayana Swami is saying that if ISKCON
allows women to act as diksha-gurus and if ISKCON allows projects such as Krishna West,
ISKCON will be incapable of developing top-standard education systems. Have I missed the
connection? Why either/or? By the same token, we may ask Badrinarayana Swami what has he
done, in his thirty years as a GBC, for developing education in ISKCON? How many schools has
he established in his GBC zone? How many devotees has he encouraged and sponsored to pursue
higher education to in turn establish ISKCON schools for our children?

Conclusion
As any member of ISKCON, Badrinarayana Swami is entitled to his opinion. In fact, senior as he
is, we would expect Maharaja to have already thought about and formulate conclusive opinions
on the issues that he raised. We empathize with Badrinarayana Swamis fear that ISKCON
becomes assimilated into modern materialism. ISKCON members should share this healty fear.
9

The reader can double-check on his website: the time-period is roughly Fall 2015.

However, I suggest that Badrinarayana Swami not pose as someone who tries to facilitate
honest and in-depth discussion when, as I have shown, his agenda is different. Based on the
content of his paper and on his own actions, Badrinarayana Swamis agenda is to convince the
GBC and all the members of ISKCON to adopt his specific views. Such an agenda is legitimate.
One is not at fault if one tries to convince others of ones own perspective. However, one should
be straightforward about ones intentions, especially when writing an article. Badrinarayana
Swami could have written, In this paper I present what I consider to be the definitive and most
accurate interpretation of Srila Prabhupadas teachings on the issues of female diksha-gurus, on
the role of women, on homosexuality, and on Krishna West. He could have added, I hope that
by doing so, the readers, including the GBC, will adopt my point of view.

In his On saving the soul of ISKCON paper, Badrinarayana Swami asks, What if the
ISKCON name became synonymous with quality, self-reliance, integrity, wisdom, happiness,
and doing good for the world? Thats a great question. Integrity, especially, is a quality that I
pray to develop. Perhaps the next time that Badrinarayana Swami writes a similar article, he will
demonstrate integrity by making his true agenda clear from the onset.

Chandrashekhara acharya dasa

February 15th, 2016
Advaita Acharyas appearance day
Berkeley, California