Prabhupada, Kanupriya And Jamadagni, Excerpt From Historic Conversation Options

[0Seeking Truth0]

I have long thought, and have said so on this forum, that Prabhupada was insane. In many ways a genius, but certifiably insane. This conversation excerpt is one such evidence of it.

I do not believe he was "insane," as you say, but, judging by his many troubling statements in this conversation and elsewhere, neither do I believe he was a fully spiritually realized person qualified to absolutely control people's lives the way he did (particularly the lives of the helpless children he forcibly sent away from their families via his morally criminal "gurukula" directive).

"Although rape is not legally allowed, it is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape." (SB 4.25.41)

"Yes, that is law always. Rape means without consent, sex. Otherwise there is no rape. There was a rape case in Calcutta, and the lawyer was very intelligent. He some way or other made the woman admit, "Yes, I felt happiness." So he was released. "Here is consent." And that's a fact. Because after all, sex, rape or no rape, they will feel some pleasure. So the lawyer by hook and crook made the woman agree, "Yes, I felt some pleasure." "Now, there is consent." So he was released. After all, it is an itching sensation. So either by force or by willingly, if there is itching, everyone feels relieved itching it. That's a psychology. It is not that the woman do not like rape. They like sometimes. They willingly. That is the psychology. Outwardly they show some displeasure, but inwardly they do not. This is the psychology." (Morning Walk – May 11, 1975, Perth)

"[Indira Gandhi] is not leader, she is a prostitute. Woman given freedom means prostitute. Free woman means prostitute. What is this prostitute? She has no fixed-up husband."(Room Conversation -- April 5, 1977, Bombay)

"A woman as no husband declares herself independent, which means that she becomes a prostitute." (SB 6.5.14 Purport)

Prabhupada: "So sasan ke adhikari means they should be punished. (laughs) Punished means, just like dhol, when the, I mean to say, sound is not very hard, dag-dag, if you beat it on the border, then it comes to be nice tune. Similarly, pasu, animals, if you request "My dear dog, please do not go there." Hut! (laughter) "No, my dear dog. Hut!" This is the way. Similarly, woman. If you become lenient, then she will be troublesome. So in India still, in villages, whenever there is some quarrel between husband wife, the husband beats and she is tamed (laughs). (Room Conversation—April 12, 1969, New York)

"I am also in receipt of your letters dated October 20 & 21, 1975. I note that your wife and Visalaini both gave birth to baby girls. That is the defect. I want male children but you have no stamina for it. I expected from Visalaini by her belly that it would be a boy. Anyway, never mind. The name Brijlata is nice. Why do the majority of my married disciples give birth to girls?" (Letter to Dhananjaya, Bombay, November 9, 1975)

"Sudra is to be controlled only. They are never to be given freedom. Just like in America. The Blacks were slaves. They were under control. And since you have given them equal rights they are disturbing, most disturbing, always creating a fearful situation, uncultured and drunkards. What training they have got? They have got equal right? That is best, to keep them under control as slaves but give them sufficient food, sufficient cloth, not more than that. Then they will be satisfied."
(Room Conversation, "Varnasrama System Must Be Introduced," Mayapura, February 14, 1977)

"Certainly we are not going to say these things about the negro people publicly...you can understand that these talks are not for the public, as they have not got the ability to understand." (Letter to Satsvarupa Dasa - San Francisco, April 9, 1976)

And, about a 13-year-old child, "Yes, send him to farm, work in the field. If he does not work, beat him." (Room Conversation, Vrndavana, November 5, 1976)

[babu]

Prabhupada: So you have given up the Vaisnava-sadacara for business selling. So you can be dangerous for that.

a telling statement for someone who lived his life as a business selling man.

[zanardi]

You guys (babu, Meta, ePiTau, Zanardi) are all making fun! But I think this conversation is completely horrifying! The person making these bizarre statements is the person we all surrendered to as the "as-good-as-God" "Founder Acharya," the "jagat-guru" whose books we, at least for some time, accepted as "the lawbooks for mankind for the next ten thousand years."

Sometimes the movie is so bad that it becomes almost good, or should I say "good as God"? But I am deeply sorry for all of us who had to suffer the repercussions. Make no mistake about that. Laughter is a good medicine when reasoning becomes tiresome.

[Apres Laulyam]

You guys (babu, Meta, ePiTau, Zanardi) are all making fun! But I think this conversation is completely horrifying! The person making these bizarre statements is the person we all surrendered to as the "as-good-as-God" "Founder Acharya," the "jagat-guru" whose books we, at least for some time, accepted as "the lawbooks for mankind for the next ten thousand years."

Sometimes the movie is so bad that it becomes almost good, or should I say "good as God"? But I am deeply sorry for all of us who had to suffer the repercussions. Make no mistake about that. Laughter is a good medicine when reasoning becomes tiresome.

'Laughter is a good medicine when reasoning becomes tiresome. ' Hello Zanardi. You got that right. When I went to sleep last night, my brain was broken. My first thought this morning, and I am not making this up, was 'You've got to lighten up.'
Not in any way to undermine Seeking Truth's observation of the repercussions.

[Homer]

Like the black guys say, 'f--k it if you can't take a joke.'

[Homer]

Like the black guys say, 'f--k it if you can't take a joke.'

So we are censored now?

[ePiTau]

You guys (babu, Meta, ePiTau, Zanardi) are all making fun! But I think this conversation is completely horrifying! The person making these bizarre statements is the person we all surrendered to as the "as-good-as-God" "Founder Acharya," the "jagat-guru" whose books we, at least for some time, accepted as "the lawbooks for mankind for the next ten thousand years."

Well yes, I understand you must be a little impatient with us figures and our funny comments.

For my part it looks like this:
It was during my research for the CUP Volume, when I systematically combed through all of Prabhupada's conversations, that I discovered this gem. My theory was, and still is, that Prabhupada's conversations are very indicative of his personality and mental profile. When I first found this conversation I showed it to Dhy and posted it on an ISKCON mail forum called Topical Discussions. I called it "Prabhupada's talk with the Pralamba-kesins" (pralamba-kesin is Skt. for "one whose hair is hanging down"). Thereafter Dhy posted it on Gaudiya-Discussions. From there it seeped into here. This was almost ten years ago now. At that time I was simultaneously upset, incredulous and excited to have found such a load of self-revealing nectar. Making fun of it now doesn't mean I think it is less serious. I just can't remain serious for all too long.

[angrezi]

As the movement got bigger I think his way of dealing with disciples deteriorated. They were expendable because there numbers were so many.

And yet they say they are prepared to spend gallons of their own blood to make one true disciple.

some people spill gallons of semen for maya

[angrezi]

Like the black guys say, 'f--k it if you can't take a joke.'

So we are censored now?

if you just talk about sex using proper terminology there will be no problem

[metamorphosis]

You guys (babu, Meta, ePiTau, Zanardi) are all making fun! But I think this conversation is completely horrifying! The person making these bizarre statements is the person we all surrendered to as the "as-good-as-God" "Founder Acharya," the "jagat-guru" whose books we, at least for some time, accepted as "the lawbooks for mankind for the next ten thousand years."

Well yes, I understand you must be a little impatient with us figures and our funny comments.

For my part it looks like this:
It was during my research for the CUP Volume, when I systematically combed through all of Prabhupada's conversations, that I discovered this gem. My theory was, and still is, that Prabhupada's conversations are very indicative of his personality and mental profile. When I first found this conversation I showed it to Dhy and posted it on an ISKCON mail forum called Topical Discussions. I called it "Prabhupada's talk with the Pralamba-kesins" (pralamba-kesin is Skt. for "one whose hair is hanging down"). Thereafter Dhy posted it on Gaudiya-Discussions. From there it seeped into here. This was almost ten years ago now. At that time I was simultaneously upset, incredulous and excited to have found such a load of self-revealing nectar. Making fun of it now doesn't mean I think it is less serious. I just can't remain serious for all too long.

Wow, i did not know, that is very serious. Your feelings must have been so strong and mixed!

I remember reading it long ago, but just quick, and again i have done that. I really probably should read the quote, and then i would know a little more.

[Brainiac]

You guys (babu, Meta, ePiTau, Zanardi) are all making fun! But I think this conversation is completely horrifying! The person making these bizarre statements is the person we all surrendered to as the "as-good-as-God" "Founder Acharya," the "jagat-guru" whose books we, at least for some time, accepted as "the lawbooks for mankind for the next ten thousand years."

I think that this "ten thousand years" thing is a typical example of how ridiculous the whole business is. Who said this (Prabhupada) and whoever believes in it (his followers) both betray their God-given intelligence (oh how ironic) by seriously expecting and thinking that all their crazy ideas will last for that long oblivious of any and every change that might occur. Comments against women were probably a reaction to the feminist revolution taking place during those years, and the comments on homosexuality are outdated now despite the 70's-thinking of it being a perversion (and was scientifically considered a condition of mental disorder). And racism is uhm, not politically correct now that we have a black man in the White House. It is plainly obvious even for a child to see that as time passes many more changes will take place in the world that will organically outgrow many of the tenets of KC, what to speak of totally new situations presenting themselves. And these twits seriously think that their precious religion will survive 'as it is' for 10,000 years statically and not dynamically? That is why I laugh at every attempt by the conservative factions in ISKCON who scream blue murder at the slightest hint of any "innovations" going on as being a deviation from what Prabhupada taught. They should take a leaf out of the Catholic Church's book and allow any reformations to happen naturally, don't they learn anything from history? And didn't Prabhupada once suggest that ISKCON should be structured in a way similar to the Catholic Church?

I haven't read ePiTau's famous paper on the women quotes in the Bryant-Ekstrand book, but I understand that a main point is how Prabhupada's anti-women attitudes were sufficiently extraneous to what the previous Acharyas wrote in their purports to the same scriptures. In other words, isn't it so that "negative" attitudes to women were presented by Visvanatha Cakravarti, Jiva Gosvami and others, and that the Bhagavatam itself is full of choice leers and sneers at women? So people argue about the to's and fro's of Prabhupada's personal motives; I personally think that as well as his own prejudices there was the 'extra' factor of being the inheritor of Bhaktisiddhanta's gung-ho pro-celibacy Gaudiya reformatory revolution. Be that as it may, there is more history in Visvanatha's, Jiva's and others' works to contend with as well as the scriptures themselves.

And when you do a little research into other religions and realise that they also wrestle with their individual peculiarities and discriminatory histories, which were and are more profound and far-reaching than the tiny minority of GVism, and you realise that what's going on in GV/ISKCON is just history endlessly and tediously repeating itself, it makes me wonder when people will finally wake up and realise how the entire system is rotten from top to bottom and consign the whole mess to where it belongs: the trash can.

[babu]

And when you do a little research into other religions and realise that they also wrestle with their individual peculiarities and discriminatory histories, which were and are more profound and far-reaching than the tiny minority of GVism, and you realise that what's going on in GV/ISKCON is just history endlessly and tediously repeating itself, it makes me wonder when people will finally wake up and realise how the entire system is rotten from top to bottom and consign the whole mess to where it belongs: the trash can.

there is a god
but there isn't a religion

[0Seeking Truth0]

You guys (babu, Meta, ePiTau, Zanardi) are all making fun! But I think this conversation is completely horrifying! The person making these bizarre statements is the person we all surrendered to as the "as-good-as-God" "Founder Acharya," the "jagat-guru" whose books we, at least for some time, accepted as "the lawbooks for mankind for the next ten thousand years."

Well yes, I understand you must be a little impatient with us figures and our funny comments.

For my part it looks like this:
It was during my research for the CUP Volume, when I systematically combed through all of Prabhupada's conversations, that I discovered this gem. My theory was, and still is, that Prabhupada's conversations are very indicative of his personality and mental profile. When I first found this conversation I showed it to Dhy and posted it on an ISKCON mail forum called Topical Discussions. I called it "Prabhupada's talk with the Pralamba-kesins" (pralamba-kesin is Skt. for "one whose hair is hanging down"). Thereafter Dhy posted it on Gaudiya-Discussions. From there it seeped into here. This was almost ten years ago now. At that time I was simultaneously upset, incredulous and excited to have found such a load of self-revealing nectar. Making fun of it now doesn't mean I think it is less serious. I just can't remain serious for all too long.

Thanks so much for writing this.

Yes, after I wrote that post, I was recalling how most of you guys figured all of this stuff out years ago. This is old news for most of you.

But I was not on the Internet at all until maybe six years ago, and that was only for email. And I didn't check out any devotee websites until a couple of years after that, and then it was only the ones like Dandavats. I never even knew of any of the "controversial" ones where any of these kinds of discussions were taking place. Neither did I have access to the VedaBase.

So this is all brand new for me. I only found out about the quotes posted above (the ones in my response to Strange Pilgrim) maybe nine or ten months ago. And I only read this conversation a couple of days ago. So in the head space I was in when I wrote that post, I was not really feeling impatient with you guys, just incredulous that anybody could find anything funny about that bizarre conversation. But, as you say, you and others processed it years ago.

That's one of the really interesting things about GR and how organic it is.....a number of people here have been friends for years and have been discussing these issues for years. But then "fresh bloopers" (I think this term of Eva's was so funny) are welcomed and absorbed into the mix with patience and tolerance. So on the one hand I felt stupid reposting that conversation because it's already been on GR for, like, four years. But on the other hand, I had never encountered it and felt certain that there must be lots of others out there like me.

[evakurvan]

But then "fresh bloopers" (I think this term of Eva's was so funny)

I felt the funnies too when it plopped to mind.

You know how blooping is a bad thing but when you say it that way, "fresh bloopers," you make it sound like hot shit.

[evakurvan]

you are welcome metamorph

[metamorphosis]

Although I feel bad for the person, I think especially devotee #2 who was courageous with his honesty toward Prabhupada, while wimpy-ass suck-up Satsvarupa trying to swerve and distract it (lame!) away from the guy's obviously pleading question he is asking, and how heart-breaking it is to be told,..............

Thank you so much for saying that Evakurvan! Now i remember this conversation, and how i processed it, years ago.

That SDG was there doing that what you wrote, reminds me that this whole conversation is suspect in ways, i remember finding that there was a lot more, that was said, but SDG had that part removed.

[Brainiac]

there is a god
but there isn't a religion

Alas, I wonder, as all that has happened in the name of religion makes me wonder if there is a God, watching all and doing nothing.

ST, don't worry, the re-discussion of these issues sometimes helps to remind people of their feelings of the issue as time passes, as reactions may change and vary as time passes. I find it interesting to muse of these things from time to time, as it might strengthen some of my feelings on it and helps me realise if my own opinions and views stand the test of time.

In fact I wonder if I should do a little more stirring and ask you what you think about Prabhupada's "Gun or Gita" policy on forcible conversion?

(Just in case you're wondering, the Subal in that discussion is formerly Subal Swami)

[0Seeking Truth0]

In fact I wonder if I should do a little more stirring and ask you what you think about Prabhupada's "Gun or Gita" policy on forcible conversion?

Brainiac, you are so funny with your !

I have been trying to catch up on old GR discussions, and just spent a long time reading the entire Is Prabhupada Responsible? thread. So I don't really have the time right now to read the one you have suggested.

But I have heard that quote before and I did read what Subal wrote. And it seems completely obvious to me that ACBS meant it seriously and that it was taken seriously by the disciples who were present.

And you ask, what do I think? I think it is just one more totally bizarre statement to add to the list of bizarre statements.

What do you think?

[Homer]

Like the black guys say, 'f--k it if you can't take a joke.'

So we are censored now?

if you just talk about sex using proper terminology there will be no problem

Like the negro persons' say, 'Copulate it if you can't take a joke.'

Please forgive me a million times if this offhand remark offends sensitive minds.

[Homer]

But I have heard that quote before and I did read what Subal wrote. And it seems completely obvious to me that ACBS meant it seriously and that it was taken seriously by the disciples who were present.

This is men's business. I doubt that any woman (perhaps except for Malati, who is more of a man then most men) is privy to the mechanisms of gender class espoused by Prabhupada and his chosen (yes, he did choose them with his infinite god given wisdom) leaders.

There was, and is, a forked tongue language to keep the baggage in the cargo area.