Category Archives: Srila Prabhupada

I owe Srila Prabhupada everything. It is because of him that I found my place, my spiritual path back home, back to Godhead. It’s because of him that I have some amazingly wonderful friends who follow the same path. It’s because of him that I am living my life in the best way I know how and am happy. Without him, I’m not sure where I would have ended up.

Though I had never personally met Srila Prabhupada, I’ve always seen him as a spiritual grandfather, a teacher. The role he took with his disciples was one very similar to a parent.

Similarly, my parents were also great and raised me with many of the morals that I will keep through all my days. I feel amazingly fortunate to be born into such a caring and loving family. I may not agree with my parents on some issues, but they will always be my parents. I will always love them unconditionally and will be forever unable to repay them for all they have done for me.

When I was a kid, I thought my parents, especially my father, could do anything. My dad could fix anything. If the car was broken, he’d fix it, if a toy was broken, he’d fix it. Of course, there are things he can’t fix – I know that now. But, of course, that could never change how I feel about him, how I respect him and how I love him.

For the longest time, there were passages written or spoken by Srila Prabhupada that I simply didn’t agree with. I skimmed over them and skirted the issue time and time again. But as I continued down my path, it became harder for me to ignore this.

At first, I was angry at Srila Prabhupada. How could he say such things? Sure, he was from a different culture and a different time, but even so, there’s no way I could agree.

The same was true when I first started disagreeing with things my father said. I was angry at him. How dare he believe things I don’t?! Of course, that’s a pretty childish and selfish way to see it, but I was young.

Likewise, my first knee-jerk reaction to some of Srila Prabhupada’s statements was selfish and immature. How dare Srila Prabhupada disagree with me?!

But then I calmed down and thought about it. Turns out, I don’t seem to have an answer that makes much sense to anyone but me.

With my father, I accepted the differences and still loved him – probably loved him more. My father and I are different in many ways, but the morals, the values that he taught me have always stuck with me. That’s what’s important.

And with Srila Prabhupada, I have to accept these differences and still love him. There are things he said and did that I cannot ever agree with. But there are things he’s taught me that make me a much better person.

I disagree with him about women. I don’t believe that a single woman living on her own is the same as a prostitute. I don’t believe that women should only be taught how to clean, sew and cook rather than being given an education of her own choosing. I do not and cannot ever believe that women are less intelligent than men. I have seen the opposite many, many times and so has anyone reading this.

I don’t agree that the brain of a woman is half the size of a man’s. That is simply not true and we all know it.

There are many such things that he said that the vast majority of his followers know to be untrue, out of date, impractical or simply incorrect. We know this. It is a fact.

But what is important is what do we do with this fact? That was my question and, in many ways, still is. What do I do? I disagree with Srila Prabhupada… now what? Am I committing the greatest offense in the history of offenses? Am I just some liberal neophyte trying to modernize Krishna consciousness? Am I being unfair?

I guess here is where it gets personal.

As I said before, my father and I disagree on some issues, some big issues. But this does not effect our love for each other. If I go to my father, even though we disagree, he is there for me unconditionally. Though we disagree on some pretty big issues in both of our lives, that bond is there and will always be unbroken.

How can Srila Prabhupada be any different? If I disagree with him on some issues, is that love, that bond now null and void? Is what he taught me, through his books and lectures now automatically invalidated? Or do I take the spiritual essence of what he has taught and add it to my life, just like I’ve been trying to do all these years?

There are some who have rejected Srila Prabhupada completely for what he has said. And there are others who pretend that he didn’t say such things. Both of those paths would be dishonest in my life. Others might be able to do that, but I can’t.

I’ll have to choose the middle path and be open about it, neither rejecting the truth nor hiding that I don’t believe in certain things.

Many times he said to “simply add Krishna.” I think that’s my favorite teaching of his. Simply add the chanting of Hare Krishna and your life will be sublime. I may not agree with him on some things, but he was dead on with that one. For now, I’ll continue working on that.

I believe that this is all I’ll be posting on this subject. I was going to go through quotes, but if you wanted to, you could find them pretty easily. For now, this is my conclusion. In the future it may or may not change, but for now, this will have to suffice.

The Gita Comparisons posts will return next week at their regularly scheduled time. For now, enjoy this little nugget of wackiness!

I don’t read Sampradaya Sun very much. Maybe once a week, maybe less. I’ll glance at it here and there. So it was surprising when I noticed that my blog was getting a lot of hits from the Sampradaya Sun site. I didn’t post there, never have. The folks who rant at the SS seem to rant about the same things over and over and over and never get anywhere and it gets amazingly dull.

Anyway, yesterday some fellow named Janmastami dasa posted a mini-rant about me, proving once and for all that the Sampradaya Sun’s editorial policy is a very loose “anything goes” kind of policy.

Apparently, he took issue with my post questioning Srila Prabhupada’s use of “lower birth.” You can read what I wrote here.

Though possibly controversial, I thought my post was, at least, a fair question to ask. I explained my idea of “lower birth” and did take issue with Srila Prabhupada’s use of it in translating this verse. I wasn’t a jerk about it. I wasn’t offensive. I was merely questioning why he chose to do so.

And Janmastami answered (which is fine) on the Sampradaya Sun (which is sort of weird). I’m not really sure why he didn’t just comment here, since that seems the sensible thing to do. But as we’ll soon find out, “sensible” probably isn’t something he’s regularly accused of being.

He starts off with some wild ideas:

One of ISKCON’s current and more prolific bloggers is Bhakta Eric, who recently posted this alleged “spiritual knowledge”. Clearly, if the ISKCON he purports to speak for felt that he was misrepresenting the facts, they would admonish him rather than making him a contributing editor at the Planet ISKCON. If, however, the points that the powers that be want made are as volatile and politically incorrect as some now being brought up, it would behoove them to have a surrogate speak “the philosophy” vicariously for them.

First, while I am a current and prolific blogger, I’m not ISKCON’s blogger. Hell, most of my posts are about scooters and Godzilla. As far as I know, they have nothing to do with ISKCON. And why does he put “spiritual knowledge” in quotes like he’s quoting me? That’s weird. I never said that.

I’ve also never purported to speak for ISKCON. They’ve never asked me and I’m certainly not holding my breath waiting for that phone call. And while I don’t want to throw pipe bombs at ISKCON temples, you could hardly call me a company man. I’ve openly taken issue with MANY things ISKCON has done and is doing. I mean, ever read The Hing?

I’m also not an editor at Planet ISKCON. I’m actually surprised I’m still allowed to post there [thanks, btw]. I also don’t think ISKCON has the power to make people contributing editors to Planet ISKCON, though I’m not sure.

I do agree, however, that if ISKCON, unbeknownst to me, is using me as their spokesperson, they should probably find a surrogate.

His second paragraph was an incomplete sentence and a couple of quotes from my post, so I’ll not trouble you with it.

Then in his third:

We find accusations about the various errors he finds in Srila Prabhupada’s writings. One must be struck with wonder as to whom this bhakta aspires to seek initiation from. One who feels the need to issue his bhakta’s eye view of Srila Prabhupada’s mistakes, complete with his analysis and corrections, must surely find some of ISKCON’s “in good standing” gurus highly attractive.

I don’t think I was accusatory. And I never used the word “error,” but it’s cute how he tried to link me with those who say that Prabhupada’s books are filled with errors and must be changed.

And yes! One must be struck with wonder! This bhakta aspires to seek initiation from nobody. I’ve been a devotee for fifteen or so years and when Krishna sees fit to send me a guru, I will most assuredly accept. Maybe Janmastami has some suggestions? To be honest, I’ve not found anyone “highly attractive.” Sorry?

The magnitude of the deviation is obvious when some overly pampered bhakta has the audacity to criticise Srila Prabhupada’s Bhaktivedanta purports because the idiots that he has been reciting Gita with for his entire time in association with ISKCON have no real understanding or appreciation of the mass of information they almost have at their disposal. These are the times we find ourselves immersed in. Can the massive correction be far off?

I’m a little cloudy on “magnitude of the deviation.” And I’m not really sure what an “overly pampered bhakta” is. But while I don’t feel that I’m overly (or underly) pampered, I am a bhakta, and pretty happy about that. Bhakta means student, right? Actually it means “devotee,” but the connotation is on studying bhakti. And I am. But nobody feeds me peeled grapes or does my laundry for me.

I’ve also not been reciting Gita with anyone, really. I mean, sure, I do the weekly Gita comparison post and there’s some chit chat about it that I have really grown to love, but I’ve not really recited Gita with anyone since my days at New Vrndavana. Now that I think about it, that’s sort of a bummer. Hopefully when I find people to recite Gita with they’re not idiots, goodness!

I guess I am the times you find yourself immersed in. Ho-hum.

And what is this “massive correction?” He’s so cryptic!

So, that’s about it. Half the things he said meant something else and the other half didn’t mean anything at all. Sad, really.

A little while ago, I wrote an entry entitled “Questioning Srila Prabhupada.” This is the first toe-dipping into that arena.

The quote in question is from Bhagavad-gita 9.32:

O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth–women, vaisyas [merchants], as well as sudras [workers]–can approach the supreme destination.

What is actually being said is those that take shelter in Krishna can approach the supreme destination. That’s the whole intent of the verse.

Both Krishna (in the original Sanskrit) and Srila Prabhupada (in the translation) mention “women, vaisyas and sudras.”

In the original Sanskrit, it is a list: those of lower birth, women, vaisyas, also sudras. But in Srila Prabhupada’s translation the list is describing “lower birth.” He describes “lower birth” as women, vaisyas and sudras.

This, of course, is where the controversy is.

In no other Gaudiya-Vaisnava translation and commentary that I’ve seen is it translated as such. The verse is a great one. It is saying that love of God is available to anyone without discrimination. However, it also appears that Srila Prabhupada is discriminating against women, vaisyas and sudras, calling them “lower birth.”

To me, this term is not so much insulting as it is truthful. I have always taken it to mean “worse situation from birth.” Technically, the word “papa-yonayah” means “troubled womb.”

If someone is, for instance, born a black woman or in a working class family, it’s probably going to be a tougher life than someone born as a while male in a rich family. That’s just a fact. And technically, one would be a “higher birth” and the other a “lower birth.”

I don’t see this particular verse as Srila Prabhupada saying that “women are worse than men.” The real purport is that everyone is eligible, no matter your social status.

Like I said before, the original Sanskrit and every other translation avoids this confusion and does not claim that “women, vaisyas and sudras” are of a lower birth. But it does mention “papa-yonaya” – basically troubled families.

Why Srila Prabhupada chose to translate it this way is beyond me. While I don’t believe he was exposing a prejudice here, he certainly could have phrased it in a clearer way. After all, this is a very anti-prejudicial statement by Krishna.

Again, my take on it is that women, sudras, people from troubled families and pretty much anyone that’s going to get a crappy end of the stick due to how they were born and where they were born (black, gay, poor in a place that is prejudiced against them) is, by definition a “lower birth.” It’s not going to be an easy life because of the situation at birth. Lower birth = crappy birth.

“Lower birth” is a material designation, it has nothing to do with the spiritual (as this verse says). However, Srila Prabhupada’s choice to translate it like this could easily turn off women (right away) and workers/farmers when they figure out what “sudras” and “vaisyas” are. Someone could easily take this to mean that Srila Prabhupada is being prejudiced against them – and in his translation that appears to be so.

If he had translated it as it was in Sanskrit and as other acaryas and gurus in our line have translated it, it would be much clearer and wouldn’t require a long explanation.

For the past several weeks, I’ve been giving quite a lot of thought to a few things that Srila Prabhupada has said that could be seen (by pretty much anyone) as controversial. Over the next week, I am planning on reviewing these statements.

There’s been quite a bit of talk about this already, but much of that, in my opinion, is made of either excuses or anger. Neither will be here. I’m in no position to make excuses for Srila Prabhupada and I really have no time or patience for anger, especially about spiritual matters.

I plan on simply being fair. I am pretty good at not taking things out of context, but also not allowing the context to be used as a free pass.

While these topics have been discussed, ISKCON has not really addressed them. They almost did when the whole “footnotes” thing came up, but it quickly died down.

And actually, the “footnotes” thing is what originally got me thinking about this. Some devotees wanted to add footnotes to some of Srila Prabhupada’s books in order to explain some of the controversial things he had written. Those footnotes never came to be.

My take on that was that I didn’t believe that Srila Prabhupada’s books should be changed in any capacity. They are his books (for better or worse). Just as I’d be against changing Stephen King’s books or Mark Twain’s books, I’m against changing Srila Prabhupada’s books. Basically, if you want the books to say something they didn’t say, write your own book and say it yourself – that’s the tradition in our line (and in the real world too!).

Anyway, my soul searching on this issue has very little to do with book changes. It has everything to do with my own reconciliation with some statements made by Srila Prabhupada.

Until this point, I basically ignored it. I knew that he said some controversial things – hell, I even knew what most of them were – but I excused all of them with the “he’s from a different generation in a different culture” pass. While that is most certainly true and does, in my opinion, explain some, it does not explain all.

Mostly, those are the ones that I’ll be exploring.

I won’t be hitting upon the spiritual differences between Srila Prabhupada’s teachings and other Gaudia-Vaisnava groups. I’m not qualified to do that. So things like “origin of the jiva,” etc won’t be touched here.

What I’ll be posting will definitely not be everyone’s cup of tea. But it’s my promise that it will be devoid of anger (because I’m not angry) and fair/balanced (but not in a Fox News sort of way). Much of what has been written about this is long, ranty and often boring. I’ll try to be brief, to the point and hopefully not boring.

At this point, I don’t really have an opinion. I have some thoughts, but I don’t know where I stand (or, in some cases, where to stand). And if it’s also fair and without anger, I would very much enjoy feedback on this from anyone. Angry stuff and long rants will be deleted no matter which side you’re on.

All of this said, no matter how this turns out, it will not waver my faith in Gaudia-Vaisnavaism even a little bit. Quite to the contrary, it will strengthen it.

Again, help is always welcome. And if there be questions, feel free to ask.