But there are so many examples of women in the Vedic literature who got brahma-gayatri which shows that in the Vedic times also women got brahma-gayatri and upanayana.

[On this page, unless and otherwise specified, the Purva Paksa is the Sastric Advisory Committee's recent (June 2022) Paper on Brahma Gayatri in ISKCON, often quoted verbatim]

This topic and the evidence presented by the Purva-paksins have already been thoroughly proven wrong 8 years ago, still the Purva-paksins put forward the same arguments. Although on this web-page we will respond to it to some extent, those interested in detailed refutations of the above claim can visit an old article that was specifically written as a response to arguments of one of the purva-paksins' then published paper on the same matter (in 2013, by Madhavananda and Bhakta-rupa Prabhus, Madhavananda is one of the authors of the SAC's recent Brahma Gayatri paper from where the purva-paksin arguments in this discussion are being brought). 

The article by the purva-paksins (Madhavananda and Bhakta-rupa Prabhus) was titled "Education and Guruship of Vaisnavis," [click here] and the Response to that article is titled "Analysis Of Education And Guruship of Vaisnavis," [click here]. In case these links don't work then you can find these papers here and here. The response was thorough and published in a few parts on the SUN Editorials website. 

A point to be noted in these papers is that the paper was published back in 2013 and the response was already given by 2015. Still the same old points are being repeated by the SAC, here. It is regrettable that it indicates a non-scholastic so-called stubborn mentality of the SAC, not fitting for such a high post that is guiding the whole ISKCON society.

NOW BEGINS OUR DISCUSSION

Purva Paksa: There is ample evidence that in very ancient times at least, women of the higher three varṇas did receive the Gāyatrī. The Yama-smṛti specifies the right of women to study Vedas and receive the thread,

     purā-kalpe tu nārīṇāṁ mauñjī-bandhanam-iṣyate 

     adhyāpanaṁ ca vedānāṁ sāvitrī vacanaṁ tathā 

Translation: Previously women were initiated with brāhmaṇa threads and would teach the Vedas and acquire knowledge of the Gāyatrī. 

(As quoted in the Vīramitrodaya, Samskāra Prakāśa (pp 402,403,404,405) of Mahāmahopādhyāya Paṇḍita Mitra Miśra, Edited by P.N. Sharma, Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Printed by Jai Kṛṣṇa Das Gupta, Vidya Vilas Press, Benares. 1919.) 

Siddhanta: The purva-paksins have tried hard to squeeze out some chance to prove that women had been given brahma-gayatri in the past and that this practice has been stopped in the middle (which Srila Prabhupada might have re-established). However, the purva-paksins deliberately fail to pass the real import of the above verse that all the acaryas and the dharma-sastras have passed: i.e. this was the practice for the "previous or another Kalpa," not for this kalpa. Even in the translation purva-paksins have avoided the word "kalpa." Actual translation would be "in some previous kalpa."

The purva-paksins have quoted this verse from Vira Mitrodaya, Samskara Prakasa. So they must have read the whole 3 page section dealing with it. However, they are deliberately keeping us in dark about what is discussed there (they even don't quote the whole verse from Yama because that may destroy their feministic agenda). Let us see what Vira Mitrodaya has to say about this one:

tatra purā-kalpe 'rthavāda-viśeṣaṁ | tatrārthavādika-vidheḥ-sārva-kālikatve śiṣṭa-smṛti-virodha-darśanāt kalpāntara iti smṛti-candrikā-kāraḥ |

Here the sloka starting from "pura kalpe" is an injunction found in description. In the matter of this injunctions found in description if this is made applicable to all times then it conflicts with the sistacara (sadhu pramana or the actions of the sadhus) and smriti (sastras). Therefore, the author of the Smrti-candrika concludes that this injunction or practice is of another kalpa not of this one (as is found in the verse itself, pura kalpe).

And after discussing the whole matter, harmonizing this pramana with Manu, Yajnavalkya, and others, Vira Mitrodya again concludes:

purā kalpa iti vacanān nāsmin kalpa ity gamyate | ata eva manuḥ—vaivāhiko vidhiḥ strīṇāṁ saṁskāro vaidikaḥ smṛtaḥ | pati-sevā gurau vāso gṛhārtho'gniparikriyā || ityādinā vivāhasyopanayana-sthānāpattim āha

Therefore, by the words "Pura Kalpe" it is established that it is not applicable in this Kalpa. Therefore, Manu says—"For women, marriage ceremony takes palce of the upanayana samskara, service of the husband takes place of living in gurukula, and tending to sacred fire and the likes is taken place by her household duties." By this sloka Manu establishes that for women marriage takes the place of upanayana samskara.

Besides, Vira-motrodaya, many other acaryas also establish the same conclusion that this verse from Yama (and also the verses from Harita) are meant for some previous kalpa. This the purva-paksins deliberately conceal from the readers in their ardent try to prove equal rights of women for brahma-gayatri and upanayana.

Purva Paksa: Śrī Mādhavācārya in his commentary to Parāśara Smṛti (Hārita XXI) says: “If the saṁskāra of upanayana was not performed in the case of girl, women would be reduced to the status of śūdras; how then could brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas be born of them?” 

Siddhanta: First of all the matter quoted from Sri Madhavacarya by the purva-paksin is their mistake; there is no such thing told by Madhavacarya in the said section. What Madhavacarya (Parasara 2.15, in between the long commentary) says is exactly the opposite and it is as follows:

nanu–“asaṃskṛtāyāḥ” iti vacane vivāharahitāyā uttamalokābhāva uktaḥ sao ‘nupapannaḥ | vivāharahitānām api brahmavādinīnām upanayanādhyayanādibhiḥ uttamalokasaṃbhavāt | ata eva hārītenoktam: “dvividhāḥ striyaḥ | brahmavādinyaḥ sadyovadhvaś ca | tatra brahmavādinīnām upanayanam agnīndhanaṃ vedādhyayanaṃ svagṛhe ca bhikṣācaryā iti | sadyovadhūnāṃ tūpasthite vivāhe kathaṃcid upanayanamātraṃ kṛtvā vivāhaḥ kāryaḥ" (HārSm 21.23) [83] iti | 

[Madhavacarya first raises an objection]: Well, in the sloka starting with asamskrtayah, it is said that women who don't get married do not achieve higher lokas. But that meaning is not to be reached. Because there are women who don't get married bur remain brahmavadinis and who get higher lokas through upanayana, adhyayana (learning the Vedas) etc. That is why it is said by the Harita (smriti): "There are two types of women: Brahmavadinis and Sadyovadhus. In that, for the brahmavadinis there is upanayana, tending of fires (agnihotras), learning of the Vedas, and bhiksa (collecting alms) in their own house. For the sadyovadhus, when there is time of marriage immediately only the upanayana is to be done and then the marriage is to be done." (Harira Smrti 21.23)

maivam, tasya kalpāntaraviṣayatvāt | tathā ca yamaḥ | 

[Then he anslwers the objection]: It is not like that. Because this statement is a subject matter of another Kalpa. That is why Yama (smriti) has said in this regard:

  purā kalpe kumārīṇāṃ mauñjībandhanam iṣyate | 

  adhyāpanaṃ ca vedānāṃ sāvitrīvācanaṃ tathā || 

  pitā pitṛvyo bhrātā vā nainām adhyāpayet paraḥ | 

  svagṛhe caiva kanyāyā bhaikṣyacaryā vidhīyate || 

  varjayed ajinaṃ cīraṃ jaṭādhāraṇam eva ca || iti | 

In a previous kalpa the kumaris (girls below 11 years of age) maunjibandhana (upanayana) samskara was there. In that they were also taught the Vedas and chanted the Savitri mantra. They were to be taught only by the father, the uncle, or the brother, not by anyone else. Their begging of alms was limited to their own house. They should not use ajina (deer skin) ciram (cloth) and should not adorn jata (matted hairs).

So the purva-paksins not only conceal the real meaning of the verses and commentators but also speaks things in the words of acaryas which are not actually spoken by them but the opposite.

Purva Paksa (continues...): 

In the Ṛg Veda Saṁhitā many mantras were authored by women, referred to as ṛṣikās. Here is a partial list of the verse numbers of the Vedic mantras and the women sages who manifested them: 4.18: Aditi; 10.72: Aditi Dākṣāyaṇī; 8.91: Apālā Ātreyī; 10.107: Dakṣinā Prājāpatyā; 10.39 and 10.40: Ghoṣā Kākṣīvatī; 10.134: Godhā; 10.86: Indrāṇī; 10.153: Indramātaraḥ; 10.142: Jaritā Śārṅgā; 10.109: Juhū Brahmajāyā; 1.171: Lopāmudrā; 10.127: Rātri Bhāradvājī; 1.126: Romaśā; 10.159: Śacī Paulomī; 10.108: Saramā Devaśuni; 10.189: Sārparājñī; 8.1: Śaśvatī Āṅgirasī; 9.86: Sikatā Nivāvarī; 9.104: Śikhaṇḍinī Kāśyapī;  10.151: Śraddhā Kāmāyanī; 8.71:  Sudīti Āṅgirasī; 10.85: Sūryā Sāvitrī; 10.85: Urvaśī; 10.125: Vāk Āmbhṛṇī; 10.28: Vasukrapatnī; 5.28: Viśvavārā Ātreyī; 10.154: Yamī; 10.10: Yamī Vaivasvatī. 

In the Bṛhad-devatā   (2.82) of Śaunaka Ṛṣi, the names of no less than twenty-six women who have contributed hymns to the Vedas are listed. This means that they have composed, practiced, taught, and initiated others in these hymns, for only the creator of a hymn or those coming in the creator's disciplic succession can initiate others. Many of these hymns can still be found today in the Vedas. (The Bṛhad-devatā attributed to Śaunaka, Arthur Anthony Macdonell, Published by Harvard University. 1904.) 

Siddhanta: The women listed above are not ordinary human women. They are all either not from bharata-varsa or they are exceptional women of exceptional Rishis who are mantra-drastas (those directly seeing the Vedic mantras) whose actions we are specifically told not to be imitated or instituted for humans. After all, who will deny brahma-gayatri to Sarasvati-devi who herself is the deity of all knowledge that is gained through brahma-gayatri.

Parasara Madhaviya 2.15, commentary of Madhavacarya on Parasara Smriti, in this regard very nicely applies a common rule of mimamsa—na daiva-caritam caret—"one should not imitate what the devas do." Here is an excerpt from that section:

nanu—śiṣṭācāra-prāmāṇye sva-duhitṛ-vivāho 'pi prasajyeta prajāpater ācaraṇāt | tathā ca śrutiḥ—"prajāpatiḥ svāṁ duhitaram abhyagāt"—iti | maivam | "na daiva-caritaṁ caret" iti nyāyāt | ata eva baudhāyanaḥ—

  anuṣṭhitaṁ tu yad-devair munibhir yad-anuṣṭitam |

  nānuṣṭeyaṁ manuṣyais tad-uktaṁ karma samācaret || iti

[Madhavacarya first raises an objection]: Well, by the evidence of sistacara (sadhus) marriage with one's daughter can also take place (or recommended). It is found mentioned in the sruti that—"The Prajapati married his daughter."

[Then he answers the objection]: It is not like that. Because of the rule—"one should not base his actions on the actions of the devas." That is why Baudhayana (smriti) says—

"Actions that are performed by the Devas and the Rishis or Munis should not be the basis of actions of Humans. Humans should perform actions that they say (not that they do)."

Same rule is mentioned by Sukadeva Gosvami in Srimad Bhagavatam 10.33.31 to answer Pariksit Maharaja's query with regards to Lord Krishna's Rasa-lila performance to be taken adharmic by people in general, then how it can be said that Lord Krishna came here to establish dharma—

  īśvarāṇāṁ vacaḥ satyaṁ   tathaivācaritaṁ kvacit

  teṣāṁ yat sva-vaco-yuktaṁ   buddhimāṁs tat samācaret

"The statements of the Lord's empowered servants are always true, and the acts they perform are exemplary when consistent with those statements. Therefore one who is intelligent should carry out their instructions."

Srila Prabhupada comments on this verse quoting it in Bg. 3.24, ppt:

We should always consider the position of the īśvaras, or those who can actually control the movements of the sun and moon, as superior. Without such power, one cannot imitate the īśvaras, who are superpowerful. Lord Śiva drank poison to the extent of swallowing an ocean, but if any common man tries to drink even a fragment of such poison, he will be killed. There are many pseudo devotees of Lord Śiva who want to indulge in smoking gañjā (marijuana) and similar intoxicating drugs, forgetting that by so imitating the acts of Lord Śiva they are calling death very near.

And also, in a similar context, in Bg. 3.35, ppt. Srila Prabhupada writes:

Viśvāmitra was originally a kṣatriya, but later on he acted as a brāhmaṇa, whereas Paraśurāma was a brāhmaṇa but later on he acted as a kṣatriya. Being transcendentally situated, they could do so; but as long as one is on the material platform, he must perform his duties according to the modes of material nature. At the same time, he must have a full sense of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.

As an example from the purva-paksin's list involving women are Aditi (daughter of Daksa, a prajapati), Atreyi (daughter of Atreya Muni), Bharadvaji (daughter of Bharadvaja Muni), and several others. These are not humans. Purva-paksins are trying to institute their actions in human society; that is prohibited.

NOTE: This procedure of taking an example or two (and specifically from the Gods and Goddesses for whom the rules of dharma are different) from Vedic literature and extrapolating them to mean that in the old Vedic times this was the norm among human beings is a repeated procedure that is applied by the modern rascal-scholarships in universities; you will find their books full of these and the purva-paksins (as will be shown later) are bringing these arguments from those books and scholars. This methodology was developed specifically by the Indologists (Britishers established this institution) to undermine the validity of Vedic knowledge that was prevalent by manufacturing a parallel interpretation of the original Vedic sources and showing that what is being followed by the so-called Vedic tradition at the time is false and was not followed before. The idea was that after a few generations it will lead traditional Indian's to question their own understanding of the Vedic culture and thus destroy their vedic roots that are otherwise so strongly upheld by the traditional following and gurukula teaching. The crux of the methodology was to teach to by-pass the sadhu pramana or the evidence of the tradition—i.e. "we do not want to get influenced by how our ancestors understand the meaning of the Vedic statements, but want to look at it by ourselves." Following this idea Max Muler was the first to comprehensively provide an alternative interpretation to the traditional understanding of the Vedas. Gradually the British government was successful to raise a parallel school for studying the Vedic lore and thus develop volumes of deviating literature. At the same time traditional schools were severly hampered by the government, if not completely shun. That resulted in a completely wiered and incorrect knowledge of the Vedic lore that became the mainstream in modern Education. Most of what is published from Universities in English language is this incorrect knowledge and more research is done and published by the scholars based on the same incorrect knowledge. This has resulted in a lens of incorrect knowledge through which most of the scholars see Vedic lore and conclude wrongly. 

Therefore, Srila Prabhupada cut through all this and directly established so emphatically that without going through the guru-parampara (guru-sadhu-sastra) you cannot understand sastras (Vedic lore).  That is why he referred to these scholars as rascal-scholars. However, it is a sad news that our devotee Purva-paksins are still adorning the same lens. We will see that as we go ahead in this discussion.

Purva Paksa (continued...): Śrīmad-bhāgavatam 4.1.64 is conclusive proof of Vedic educated girls (brahmavādinīs) since the verse names two of them (brahmavādinyau). Śrīla Prabhupāda’s translation is as follows: “Svadhā, who was offered to the Pitās, begot two daughters named Vayunā and Dhāriṇī, both of whom were impersonalists and were expert in transcendental and Vedic knowledge.” 

Siddhanta: The purva-paksa continues with the same lens derived from the rascal-scholars from universities and sees through it the faultless Srimad Bhagavatam. The context here is the description of genealogical table of the daughters of Manu is described. Down the line the daughter of Prajapati Daksa, Svadha is described as the wife of these Pitas (more than one husband...?). So herein the mother of these women "expert in transcendental and Vedic knowledge" was a daughter of Daksa Prajapati and the father was one of the Pitas (again not ordinary human of bharata-varsa or karma-bhumi). Therefore, we cannot imitate it; something that the purva-paksins think of a "conclusive proof of Vedic educated girls." 

Moreover, the Svadha, the Pitas, etc. are not characters of a bygone historical story; they still live; so how can you say that the practice was ancient? It is not. The correct understanding and a fact is that even today (and in future also) such great souls as Rishis and Devas will go on having these ceremonies and these will remain forbidden for us, the humans either in the past, today, or in future. It is not a matter of time but adhikara.

Purva Paksa: 

“It seems, formerly wives of Sāmavedic priests were entrusted with the sweet singing of difficult Sāma-chants; afterwards this task was transferred to the male priests or Udgātṛs. ‘These Udgātṛs actually perform the duties of their wives (in singing Sāma-chants)’, says S.B. [Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa] 14-3-1-35.[33] 

[33]. ‘Patnīkarmaiva ete atra kurvanti yadudgātāraḥ’.” 

(Quoted from: Jogiraj Basu, India of the Age of the Brāhmaṇas, Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, 1969, p. 50)

“Yama, the author of Yama-smṛti says—’The maidens were entitled to the investiture with the holy thread or Upanayana saṁskāra in the days of yore; they studied the Vedas and uttered the Sāvitrī mantra.[5] Another author of Smṛtiśāstra, Hārita also records this self same śloka with the only variation of ‘Purā Kalpe tu nāriṇām’ in place of ‘Kumāriṇām’. He makes the following observation also:—There are two kinds of women, viz. Brahmavādinis and Sadyovadhūs. Amongst these the Brahmavādinis were entitled to upanayana; they tended the holy fire, studied the Vedas and begged alms in their own homes. The other type, viz, Sadyovadhūs were given away in marriage after a brisk ceremony of investiture with the holy thread.[6] "

[6] ‘Dvividhā vai striyo brahmavādinyaḥ sadyovadhvaśca. Tatra brahmavādinīnāmupanayanani agnīndhanaṁ vedādhyayanaṁ svagṛhe bhīkṣācaryā ca; sadyovadhūnāṁ tūpaṣite vivāhe kathañcit upanayanaṁ kṛtvā vivāhaś kūryaḥ’." 

(Quoted from: Jogiraj Basu, India of the Age of the Brāhmaṇas, Calcutta: Sanskrit Pustak Bhandar, 1969, p. 214).

Siddhanta: Now, here you clearly notice the sources from which the purva-paksins are bringing their arguments—the rascal-scholars of the modern universities. Please notice the verses from Harita and Yama Smritis that were quoted as proof by the purva-paksins are actually coming from these books as of Jogiraj Basu and the likes. These are scholars with the Indological nastika lens. 

[click here to see detailed discussion about how lenses of such sholars are nastika (not accepting the absolute and eternal nature of the Vedas)].

We would ask the purva-paksins: why you did not consult traditional scholars and works of bona fide sampradayas in understanding these matters and references? For instance, you quoted Yama and Harita Smritis and concluded exactly the same as Jogiraja Basu (and the likes). But the very same source, Vira Mitrodaya from where you quoted these verses, explained it very elaborately and concluded the opposite. You must have seen that conclusion. Why did you not take that conclusion which came from a bona fide traditional Vedic scholar (from 17th century, appointed by the grandson of King Prataparudra) but preferred conclusion from the modern indological sources who are repeatedly tagged as rascal-scholars by Srila Prabhupada?

Example of rascaldom by Jogiraja Basu in the same book (just next p.215):

Smrticandrika, Nirnayasindhu of Kamalakara and the like authoritative works on Hindu law bear testimony to this ancient practice which became almost obsolete when Manu was compiling his code.

Actually speaking, as already shown, Smrticandrika's author says it was a matter of some previous Kalpa and not an ancient practice of this Kalpa. Therefore, he concludes opposite of what Jogiraja Basu wants us to believe. Also note the words "when Manu was compiling his code." 

In the estimation of Jogiraja Basu and the likes, Manu Smriti etc. all sastras (including the Vedas) are compiled by humans and they reflect the prevalent practices of those times. They are not the eternal texts. Therefore, his book's name is also "India in the Age of Brahmanas," which means India's customs, lifestyle, society, etc. in the times when Brahmana Literatures were written [click here to see the book]. FYI, each Veda has four parts—Samhita, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanisads. According to the modern nastika scholastic opinion these texts are all written by different people at different times. Therefore, they say "the Vedic Age," "The Pauranik Age," "The Upanisadic Age," "The Age of the Brahmanas," "The Age of the Mahabharata," etc.

Our devotee scholars have also been heavily influenced by these (mis)understandings. If you see one of the eldest disciples of Srila Prabhupada is very ardently propagating many such thoughts which if you are attentive enough you will grasp. For instance, he says that the Vastra-harana of Draupadi (ripping of Draupadi's robes) did not happen and rejects all statements of Mahabharata on this matter as being added later [click here]. For one of its refutations [click here]. He also says that he doesn't know how the mention of all the ritual practices in the Vrindavana Lila made their way to Srimad Bhagavatam. There is another devotee named Kaunteya Das who openly writes in his books quoting from such scholars and opines for instance, that the sculptor of Parvati in carvings of temples show the culture of people in those times who sculpted it. [click here for more details]. 

Another Example of rascaldom from Jogiraja Basu's Book (from which the purva-paksins quote):

Even in the epic age stray instances of this custom are met with. In.the Vanaparvan (305.20) of the Mahabharata it is recorded that a Brahmin invested Kunti, the mother of the Pandavas with the sacred thread and taught her the Savitri hymn recorded in the Atharva-siras of the Veda.

As soon as you go to the said quote in Mahabharata, their mischeif is exposed. Anyone interested in the details can go to Mahabharata Vanaparvan, chapter 305 and read the full chapter. The whole context is that Kunti Maharani, when maiden, very faithfully served the Durvasa Muni on her fathers' order and when the Muni became pleased with her gave her a blessing that she can call any demigod to beget children. The mantra that he gave her was from Atharva-veda. 

This was clearly an instance of special blessing of the Rishi and not a relic of a custom that was maintained in bygone ages. How Jogiraja Basu derives the opposite understanding is a question of contemplation for ISKON's devotees—remembering Srila Prabhupada's words: "rascal-scholars." And that also answers how our purva-paksins are deriving opposite understandings from these quotations. 

Purva Paksa: A woman can be a brāhmaṇa as mentioned in Ṛg-veda (8.33.19) as follows: strī hi brahmā babhūvitha. The Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa (5.6.8) advises that wives of the priests have to chant the Sāma Veda along with a vīṇā when a yajña is being conducted. Śukla Yajur Veda, Mādhvandina Saṁhitā, Hymn 36.24 taccakṣur-deva hitam…, is to be chanted only by a woman.  

In addition to evidence in the Vedas themselves, Vālmīki’s Rāmāyaṇa 5.14.49 says that Sītā Devī performed sandhyā vandanam, a rite that includes the chanting of the Brahma-gāyatrī mantra. In 2.20.15 we learn that Kausalya was performing the agnihotra (fire sacrifice).  

Siddhanta: Following in the footsteps of the procedures established by the rascal-scholarships, in the above section, the purva-paksins go on interpreting sastras from that lens. So it is already answered by us. Therefore, Our succint answer is that why the purva-paksins do not approach traditional scholars and literatures and with humility try to get the answers and understand these.

Just as an example, to the above Ramayana quote (2.20.15), it is already throughly refuted in 2015 itslef in a response to the paper of one of the athors of the current SAC brahma-gayatri paper. You can see full response to this point here. Still the SAC is repeating the defeated argument. A small part of the response is reproduced below:

Commentary to this verse by Govindarāja from the Śrī-sampradāya, written on Lord Veṅkaṭeśvara's order:  

          juhoti hāvayati. ata eva hāvayantīm iti vakṣyati. brāhmaṇair iti śeṣaḥ

“Offered oblations” means that she had others to offer them [on her behalf]. That is why [in the next verse] it is said “hāvayantīm” [Rāma saw her mother as] “offering sacrifice through others.” It means “through the brāhmaṇas”.

REMINDER: Those interested in detailed refutations of the above claims can visit an old article that was specifically written to defeat all these arguments of the same purva-paksins, the SACs (presented in the name of Madhavananda and Bhakta-rupa Prabhus, who are one of the authors of the SAC's Brahma Gayatri paper from where the purva-paksin arguments in this discussion is being brought). 

The article by the purva-paksins (Madhavananda and Bhakta-rupa Prabhus) was titled "Education and Guruship of Vaisnavis," [click here] and the Response to that article is titled "Analysis Of Education And Guruship Vaisnavis," [click here]. In case these links don't work then you can find these papers here and here.

A point to be noted in these papers is that they were published back in 2013 and the answer was already given by 2015. Still the same old points are being repeated by the SAC, here. This shows the non-scholastic stubborn mentality of the SAC not fitting for such a high post that is guiding the whole ISKCON society.