Scriptural authority, sabda, includes three main sources: guru, sadhu, and sastra, with sastra being the basis of guru and sadhu.

Srila Narottama dasa Thakura says, sadhu-sastra-guru-vakya, cittete kariya aikya. One should accept a thing as genuine by studying the words of saintly people, the spiritual master and the sastra. The actual center is the sastra, the revealed scripture. If a spiritual master does not speak according to the revealed scripture, he is not to be accepted. Similarly, if a saintly person does not speak according to the sastra, he is not a saintly person. The sastra is the center for all.
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrita 20.352 purport)

Pratyaksa (sense perception), and anuman (inference) are also accepted as genuine sources of knowledge. However, without the support and confirmation of sabda, one cannot have perfect knowledge (particularly of metaphysical subjects, which are altogether beyond the purview of the mind and senses):

[from the purport] Another difficulty is that those who depend more on their imperfect senses cannot realize Him as the Supreme Lord. Such persons are like the modern scientist. They want to know everything by their experimental knowledge. But it is not possible to know the Supreme Person by imperfect experimental knowledge. He is described herein as adhoksaja, or beyond the range of experimental knowledge. All our senses are imperfect. We claim to observe everything and anything, but we must admit that we can observe things under certain material conditions only, which are also beyond our control. The Lord is beyond the observation of sense perception.
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.8.19, verse and purport)

At this point, it should be quite clear that the essential, guiding authority for one's life and actions is sabda:

He who discards scriptural injunctions and acts according to his own whims attains neither perfection, nor happiness, nor the supreme destination.
(Bhagavad-gita 16.23)

Now, we turn to the incident of criticizing Srila Prabhupada, in the erstwhile Topical Discussions forum. Here is something spoken, openly, by a devotee (see I Just Have A Big Problem Trusting Persons):

About Prabhupada's self-confidence and absolute faith in the opinion of sastra XYZ devi dasi says:

"Another thing that bothers me is that Srila Prabhupada is always so sure of himself. He is fully confident in his own judgment. He is fully confident that the world is full of girls, that in certain places all people are rascals, that "Bad things means Western type of civilization," etc. Very strong, super simple black-and-white general statements. Where ordinary people would soften their statements by saying, "as far as I know," "I am convinced that," "to some degree," "in this respect," "from my experience," "most probably," "at present it looks like..." etc., Srila Prabhupada passes absolute judgemnts, and he is not even consistent in them.

I am ready to believe the source of his certainty is direct link with Krsna's absolute knowledge, *if* it can be proven he was absolutely right each time.

Up till then, I will rather suppose Prabhupada's absolute self-confidence was a feature of his own individual character."

Let's take a look at this statement: "Another thing that bothers me is that Srila Prabhupada is always so sure of himself."

What is Srila Prabhupada's status, and how is her statement consistent with that status? As this movement's Founder-Acharya and who performed amazing deeds to spread the mission of Lord Caitanya, Srila Prabhupada is undoubtedly a pure devotee, and, therefore, liberated from the effects of the material energy. Now, what are the qualities of a pure devotee?

The pure devotee is none other than Krishna Himself:

Since one cannot visually experience the presence of the Supersoul, He appears before us as a liberated devotee. Such a spiritual master is none other than Krishna Himself.
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 1.58)

Further evidence:

One should know the acarya as Myself and never disrespect him in any way. One should not envy him, thinking him an ordinary man, for he is the representative of all the demigods.
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi-lila 1.46)

So, it is the verdict of sastra that the liberated spiritual master, the acarya, is to be regarded as Krishna Himself. He is, indeed, the Servitor Personality of Godhead. In contrast to a pure devotee, a conditioned soul's unique, distinguishing features are that he commits mistakes, has imperfect senses, is prone to illusion, and has a cheating propensity:

"The difference between a conditioned soul and a liberated soul is that the conditioned soul has four kinds of defects."
(Sri Isopanisad, Introduction)

To claim that Srila Prabhupada had these defects is contrary to the definition of what a liberated devotee is. Just to show you how anti-devotional this is, consider the following logical progression:

• A person who is free from the four defects is a liberated soul.
• Srila Prabhupada is not free from these defects (at least one of them--he commits mistakes).
• Therefore, Srila Prabhupad cannot be a liberated soul.

But if we accept the above definition of a pure devotee (who is therefore a liberated soul), and you accept that Srila Prabhupada was such a liberated soul, then we must conclude that Srila Prabhupada did not commit mistakes.

It may be argued, "There is this contradiction, that contradiction, this didn't work, etc." But that in itself does not indicate that Srila Prabhupada actually made mistakes. We can understand that the perception of mistakes or other faults does not at all indicate that the liberated soul is prone to the same defects of a conditioned soul.

For example, Ramacandra Puri could find so many faults in Lord Caitanya, does that mean the Lord had faults? Or for that matter, when Lord Krishna and Lord Balarama entered the Kamsa's wrestling arena, many different people saw Krsna according to their own disposition:

"To the unintelligent, He [Lord Krsna] appeared to be an incapable personality."
(Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Ch. 43)

Does this mean Lord Krsna really was unintelligent? Of course not. Another name for Krsna is adhoksaja, or one who is beyond the range of limited sense perception. The pure Vaisnava is also not understandable to the common man:

"A Vaisnava is always engaged in the transcendental loving service of the Lord, and thus neither karmis nor jnanis can understand the activities of a Vaisnava. It is said, vaisnavera kriya-mudra vijneha na bujhaya: even the most learned man depending on direct perception of knowledge cannot understand the activities of a Vaisnava."
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrita, Madhya-lila 7.66 purport)

Since it is established by scripture and by our acaryas that

1. a pure devotee does not commit mistakes, and
2. conditioned souls cannot understand the activities of the Supreme Lord or His pure devotees,

We must conclude that whatever we see that may be a so-called mistake, we cannot ever consider that Srila Prabhupada has made a mistake.

To say that Prabhupada made mistakes is always incorrect, because a pure devotee cannot commit mistakes. Rather, what you are seeing as mistakes are simply the actions and reactions of the material body. That has nothing to do with Srila Prabhupada. Therefore, saying Srila Prabhupada "made mistakes" is unacceptable terminology, because it is not consistent with the facts, as presented by scripture:

[from the purport] The following questions may be posed. As long as the liberated soul is in contact with the body, why don't the bodily activities affect him? Doesn't he actually become contaminated by the action and reaction of material activities? In answer to such questions, this verse explains that the material body of a liberated soul is taken charge of by the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is not acting due to the living force of the living entity; it is simply acting as a reaction to past activities. Even after being switched off, an electric fan moves for some time. That movement is not due to the electric current, but is a continuation of the last movement; similarly, although a liberated soul appears to be acting just like an ordinary man, his actions are to be accepted as the continuation of past activities. In a dream one may see himself expanded through many bodies, but when awake he can understand that those bodies were all false. Similarly, although a liberated soul has the by-products of the body -- children, wife, house, etc. -- he does not identify himself with those bodily expansions. He knows that they are all products of the material dream. The gross body is made of the gross elements of matter, and the subtle body is made of mind, intelligence, ego and contaminated consciousness. If one can accept the subtle body of a dream as false and not identify oneself with that body, then certainly an awake person need not identify with the gross body. As one who is awake has no connection with the activities of the body in a dream, an awakened, liberated soul has no connection with the activities of the present body. In other words, because he is acquainted with his constitutional position, he never accepts the bodily concept of life."
(Srimad-Bhagavatam 3.28.38 text and purport)

Therefore, to say that Srila Prabhupada made mistakes is against the conclusions sastra. Since the body is taken care of by the Lord, and since a pure devotee has nothing to do with the body, who, then, is making the mistake? Krishna? (Also see A Pure Devotee Cannot Commit Mistakes)

A person who is not pure, but is aware of sastric injunctions and has reverence for them can still restrain himself, because if that weren't possible, he would automatically commit offenses (which is itself a self-contradictory idea). Besides this class of jiva, there are two classes of conditioned souls who can find fault with the liberated acarya: (1) the person who is not aware of the sastric injunctions, or (2) the person who is aware of sastra but has rejected it.

Since XYZ devi dasi has been in the movement for some years and herself sometimes gives Bhagavatam classes (and thus it is assumed has read all of Srila Prabhupada's books and is therefore aware of the above references), XYZ devi dasi's criticism cannot be ignorance of sastra but must therefore be rejection of sastra.

This is not to condemn her forever, or any such thing, but for her own good, for the good of others who have a similar view, and for the good of our Vaishnava society as a whole, we must understand reality from the point of view of scripture, as explained to us by our acaryas, otherwise, we commit offenses, fall down, and drag other unfortunates with us.

The main point in this example has been to demonstrate that such criticism, even under the guise of being "academic", "intellectual", etc., is a symptom of rejecting the authority of sastra.

Now, we turn to a more recent example.

At the begining of November (1999) in our Vrindavan temple, a section of lady devotees tried to prevent some devotees in the sannyas order from first offering their obeisances to the Deities, as prescribed by standard Vaishnava etiquette--established by scripture and our acaryas. On the one hand, the sannyasis were to offer their obeisances first to the Deities, and then after the ghee lamp was offered to the Deities, the ladies would be able to come forward for darsana. (See Temple Report - Vrindavan Management's Side) But on the other hand, the ladies maintained that because they were also devotees, many of whom had given many, many years of service to ISKCON, that they should be given equal consideration--side by side with their sannyasa godbrothers. Which view is right?

Answer--the view that is in-line with sastra:

When they entered the temple, Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya offered Caitanya Mahaprabhu a seat, while he himself sat down on the floor out of due respect for a sannyasi.
(Sri Caitanya-caritamrita, Madhya-lila 6.119)

More evidence:

In the varnasrama institution the sannyasi, or the person in the renounced order of life, is considered to be the head or the spiritual master of all the social statuses and orders.
(Bhagavad-gita, 16.1-3 purport)

The society of human being is naturally divided into eight by orders and statuses of life—the four divisions of occupation and four divisions of cultural advancement. The intelligent class, the administrative class, the productive class and the laborer class are the four divisions of occupation. And the student life, the householder's life, retired life and renounced life are the four statuses of cultural advancement towards the path of spiritual realization. Out of these, the renounced order of life, or the order of sannyäsa, is considered the highest of all, and a sannyasi is constitutionally the spiritual master for all the orders and divisions.
(Srimad-Bhagavatam, 1.3.13 purport)

The brahmacaris, the grhasthas, the vanaprasthas and the sannyasis all belong to the same mission of life, namely, realization of the Supreme. Therefore none of them are less important as far as spiritual culture is concerned. The difference is a matter of formality on the strength of renunciation. The sannyasis are held in high estimation on the strength of practical renunciation.
(Srimad-Bhagavatam, 1.7.2 purport)

Therefore, not only by culture, but by philosophy as well, sannyasis are given special respect, over and above those in all other varnas and asramas. With this understanding, we can now assess the statements made with regard to the following statements:

Neither local custom nor examples set by Srila Prabhupada obligates ISKCON managers to enforce a rule that women cannot take darsana in the front.
(Do the Women Deserve This? by Pranada dd.)

This first quote makes assumptions that aren't true, that (1) women were denied the opportunity to take darsana up front, and (2) there is no evidence that sannyasis and others should be given special regard.

The actual issue was that a section of ladies wanted to deny sannyasis the right of having the first darsana. As we can see here, from Mahaman Prabhu's version, the ladies were offered the opportunity to have darsana up close, but because they were unwilling to offer respect to sannyasis, who also wished to have darsana up close, the offer was withdrawn:

Previous to this, several other sannyasis and other devotees including HH Lokanath Swami and HH Radha Govinda Maharaj had also complained that they were experiencing difficulties in offering obeisances in front of the Radha Syamsundar altar. The management committee discussed this issue and resolved that sannyasis and men be allowed to take darshan and offer obeisances to Radha Syamsundar until the passing of the ghee wick lamp. The men would then move towards the Krsna Balaram altar leaving Radha Syamsundar altar free for the women till the end of mangala aratik. This system for darshan was suggested by the ladies themselves. The next morning a clear announcement was made about this decision.

On the day when this arrangement was to begin, I was personally present early in the temple room and was surprised to see that some ladies were already holding tightly to the railings infront of the altar. I requested some of the matajis to please move back and let the men offer their obeisances and after the ghee wick lamp is passed they could come forward. Some of these ladies followed my instructions gracefully but some others like Anada and Parvati flagrantly refused. Parvati started pushing even the innocent and obedient ladies to the front. This created an embarassing sitution for the men who were surrounded by the ladies. The management and other devotees were naturally very upset by this unruly and defiant behavior. As a solution to this problem the management team decided to go back to the system that has been existing since the time of Srila Prabhupada, i.e. the men stand in front and the ladies at the back.
(Temple Report - Vrindavan Management's Side Mahaman das)

So we can see that Pranada Mataji's first accusation is incorrect, that the women were denied darsana. Rather, it was the women themselves who tried to deny darsana to a section of society, in particular, sannyasis, who, according to our philosophy and by practical example, are supposed to be regarded as the preceptors of all other varnas and asramas, including women.

Another example:

The bottom line is this: if we are so concerned with "following" properly, then the men should understand one thing: it is nobody's fault but theirs that the women are forced to act in this way.
(Vaisnava Behavior? by Braja Sevaki dd.)

Here we have a gross misunderstanding of what constitutes "following properly". Already, it is established that the sannyasa order is constitutionally the spiritual master of all other varnas and asramas. How is it, then, that a conclusion opposed to scriptural authority has been arrived at? (Namely, that special respect, such as having first darsana, etc. should be not be offered to sannyasis.) Would anyone go before their spiritual master, or stand in front of him and offer their obeisances first to the Deities, stand in front of him while taking darsana, or take the ghee lamp before him, etc.?

The answer is quite clear that we are seeing a widespread rejection of scriptural authority. There is no such thing as "equal rights" in the varnasrama system. There are prescribed duties, and one of those prescribed duties happens to be that lower orders should offer respect to higher orders such as the sannyasa order. The fact is that a section of ladies tried to prevent such offering of respects.

Another claim made by Braja Sevaki Mataji is that women somehow automatically act correctly: ". . . it is nobody's fault but theirs that the women are forced to act in this way." But who forced the women to disrespect the sannyasis?

This is some sort of idea that women, by virtue of their gender, are somehow or other pure and faultless. If we want to take this radical view that a woman is "forced to act", then we have to accept that a woman has no free will, that she is something like an automated vending machine--you just put in your 50 cents, press a button, and you "get what you deserve."

If we accept this view, then Braja Sevaki Mataji's statement is factual, that the women were "forced to act", because the ladies (mostly westerners, with a few modernized Indians) would not have the free will to choose to act dharmically and thus transcend the nature they were born with.

But the fact of the matter is that ladies have free will and are also subject to pious or sinful reactions for their activities, even if they don't believe it. Therefore, this idea that "the ladies were forced to act" is utter nonsense, because they weren't "forced" to disrespect the sannyasis. How difficult would it have been to patiently wait until after the ghee lamp is offered and then move forward? And patience is, after all, a feminine virtue: " The seven opulences listed—fame, fortune, fine speech, memory, intelligence, steadfastness and patience—are considered feminine." (Bhagavad-gita 10.34 purport)

Ultimately, the women's action was was a rejection of scriptural authority.

And most unfortunately, we see support for such apasiddhantic thinking coming from official, managerial institutions:

Unfortunately, ISKCON's Vrindavan center (and, indeed, other ISKCON centers in India) have long been seen as seats of intolerance--and at times even hatred--toward women in our movement. Such unacceptable attitudes have been manifest in the denial to women of many facilities needed for their spiritual and material well-being.
(Your Voice Is Needed A statement by the ISKCON Women's Ministry)

Just see how this idea of offering respects to higher orders is interpreted as "hatred". This is directly in opposition to scriptural evidence:

Lord Caitanya was an ideal sannyasi, and when He was at Puri His feminine devotees could not even come near to offer their respects. They were advised to bow down from a distant place. This is not a sign of hatred for women as a class, but it is a stricture imposed on the sannyasi not to have close connections with women. One has to follow the rules and regulations of a particular status of life in order to purify his existence.
(Bhagavad-gita 16.3 purport)

It is interesting to note that Srila Prabhupada himself seemed to have anticipated such feminist ideas, by preempting his statements with such a disclaimer: "This is not a sign of hatred for women as a class. . ." But nonetheless, we see that a section of our society is claiming that offering special regard to sannyasis and keeping a respectful distance is indeed a sign of hatred.

The Vrindavan temple is supposed to set standards for all other ISKCON temples, and the GBC has been making an effort to turn ISKCON Vrindavan into a world center for education and training. Vrindavan ISKCON must be exemplary. Now it is a shame and a disgrace.
(Your Voice Is Needed A statement by the ISKCON Women's Ministry)
[emphasis to "standards" added]

If the Women's Ministry is so concerned about proper standards being practiced (as opposed to concessions), then they should encourage women to be humble and let sannyasis and others like their husbands, have first darsana, honor the ghee lamp first, etc.

The Women's Ministry ironically harps about implementing standards, but the very existence of such a ministry is in direct opposition to such standards:

"My dear brother, by the influence of destiny you have already killed many babies, each of them as bright and beautiful as fire. But kindly spare this daughter. Give her to me as your gift." (SB 10.4.5)

[PURPORT] Here we see that Devaki first focused Kamsa's attention on his atrocious activities, his killing of her many sons. Then she wanted to compromise with him by saying that whatever he had done was not his fault, but was ordained by destiny. Then she appealed to him to give her the daughter as a gift. Devaki was the daughter of a ksatriya and knew how to play the political game. In politics there are different methods of achieving success: first repression (dama), then compromise (sama), and then asking for a gift (dana). Devaki first adopted the policy of repression by directly attacking Kamsa for having cruelly, atrociously killed her babies. Then she compromised by saying that this was not his fault, and then she begged for a gift. As we learn from the history of the Mahabharata, or "Greater India," the wives and daughters of the ruling class, the ksatriyas, knew the political game, but we never find that a woman was given the post of chief executive. This is in accordance with the injunctions of Manu-samhita, but unfortunately Manu-samhita is now being insulted, and the Aryans, the members of Vedic society, cannot do anything. Such is the nature of Kali-yuga."

Please note that (1) Devaki knew politics, diplomacy, etc., and she was expert in applying them; (2) that she is a woman; and (3) she is not only a Vaisnavi, but a pure devotee and mother of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Inspite of all these points, Srila Prabhupada still insists, on the basis of Manu Samhita, that a woman (even she is Devaki) is never to take up the occupational duties of an administrative head.

Concessions may be there for time place and circumstances. At the very best, the existence of a Women's Ministry and women in managerial positions can be taken as a concession, not as a standard to be implemented. However, the agenda of the Women's Ministry is quite different:

. . .women with organizational abilities should be invited onto managerial teams in Vrindavan.
(Your Voice Is Needed A statement by the ISKCON Women's Ministry)

Why should they be? Even in Srila Prabhupada's time, no such concession that a woman was made a temple president, or a GBC, was ever given. And if, like the Women's Ministry insists, that Vrindavan is supposed to set standards (not concessions, mind you) for the rest of the world, then let's be strict about it: Women visiting there should be strict about respecting sannyasis, being shy, patient, and chaste, etc., and they should stop vying for managerial positions.

The men also must be strict and chivalrous with regard to women. But if the women are unshy, pushy, recalcitrant, and do not cooperate with the men, then how can the men do their duty to protect them? How can you protect someone who is not surrendered and uncooperative?

Here is what someone said on a COM confrence, with regard to women being strict:

Western women have completely different cultural background and demending from them to be like the women of indian cultural background wouldn't work and it doesn't work. The purpose of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness is to make people Krishna conscious and not a hindu, or Indian. Things that work for hidnu women might not work for the western women and vice versa.

Certainly, this seems reasonable. We can't after all, expect ladies born in the West to be as strict as their Indian counterparts. Now, if recalcitrance, unsubmissiveness, etc., is to be tolerated because of their being brought up in the West, then why not tolerate similar concessions for men raised in the West?

Western men have completely different cultural background and demending from them to be like the men of indian cultural background wouldn't work and it doesn't work. The purpose of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness is to make people Krishna conscious and not a hindu, or Indian. Things that work for hidnu men might not work for the western men and vice versa.

Would that be reasonable to argue that men, by virtue of being brought up in the West, do not have to protect women, be respectful to women, maintain them, etc.? Of course not. Gurus, sannyasis, brahmanas, husbands, etc., even if they are born in the West, are expected to be strict; why should women be the only exception? That is why this insistence on special concessions for women made by a section of men and ladies who are enamoured by karmi, feminist doctrines is one-sided, selfish, and above all, against the standards of devotional service that Srila Prabhupada hoped his disciples would rise to.

And after all, what is devotional service that ignores the scriptural injunctions, except a disturbance to society?

The disturbance we have seen in the Vrindavan temple is one of many that the Women's Ministry is crying foul about. Instead of trying to do away with the rules and regulations, they and everyone else should advocate that everyone--both men AND women--be more strict with regard to following the rules and regulations. Only then will you minimize your social troubles. It is nonsensical to insist that men must be strict and that women are not obliged to do likewise. All should be strict. If the Women's Ministry and its supporters really want to minimize the trouble in our society, they should stop insisting on these one-sided concessions, which themselves perpetuate the very problems they speak about.

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das