(There is something wrong with my quote tags and I cannot find the fault, so I will put your citations in blue, Brainiac.)
This is precisely why I could never understand why all those controversial quotes were such a big deal. Perhaps it was something to do with my being Indian, but when I read Prabhupada's books I could immediately understand whatever it was he was talking about. I mean, for example, I knew which parts of his words were the spiritual teachings and which parts were his"own opinions" on women, the moon missions, and so forth.It might indeed have something to do with a shared cultural background. One recognizes something as familiar, homemade, the kind of thing every wallah in the street might say -- so one doesn't even become aware of it when the guru says it. And if one does, one knows this is not anything extraordinary. (One may, or may not, share in the prejudice, but that's another matter.)
While for a Westerner, everything the guru says is exotic and superimportant.
Of course he unfortunately sometimes quoted scriptures as a sort of back-up to his points, which we now see has had the unfortunate effect of concretising his personal prejudices as if they were irrefutable shastric law, but all I can say is that I never took that too seriously because I somehow knew the difference between his teachings and his idiosyncracies.
The two may be separable to some extent but not all the way.
But then, of course, you will always get odd people who will make these things the focus of their lives, for example, a mysogynist may take delight in humiliating their partner and can claim "shastric backing" for it.
And if the teaching itself contains a measure of justification for such behavior, the misogynism will be hard to isolate and take a stance against. The kind of crap we heard from some people who delighted in shocking the devotees, and from a handful who went as far as to practice wife-beating, vaseline sex, gurukula upbringing for their children, etc. -- these people are few in comparison to the large numbers of us who may never have done the actual abuse, or been its victims, but who were left feeling that the abuse was somehow bona fide, that we might perhaps end up doing it or taking it. This was the real damage. That we got accustomed to those notions, to that abusive morality. That we lost the boundaries and became unsure. That we did not object to others' abuse.
These opinions of Prabhupada's have acted as a double-edged sword; they make him look bad (when anyone and everyone has their own personal prejudices which make them look almost, equally or more bad)
Good point. We may believe we are truly ethical today, but what will the people two generations down the road think of us?
The problems can be immediately dispensed with when one learns to differentiate between what are the actual teachings and what are his personal opinions and idiosyncracies. His words on Krishna may be important for your spiritual life, his opinions on the 1969 moon missions are not important at all.Maybe not. After all, what does the Moon landing have to do with anyone's spiritual life, save of those who did it? Very little. But the guru models behavior. His
way of arriving at his conclusions, and even more importantly, his
way of dealing with dissent, are way more important than the conclusions themselves. I see a practical bend and an often amiable disposition in him, but also a certain lack of regard for his disciples as thinking, feeling subjects. And a strong, very strong emphasis on how we really cannot not know anything, cannot think cogently, cannot form any valid conclusion. It all boiled down to accepting the teaching, on faith. If we couldn't, in his mind it wasn't because the teaching clashed with our inner sense of truth and goodness. It was because we were contaminated, have not chanted properly, etc.
You may have heard the story of Prabhupada's servant, I believe his name was Purushottama, who left him, and the movement, because of the moon controversy. It is well documented in the Lilamrita and Purushottama himself is interviewed. It comes across so vividly how Prabhupada was gentle and kind, and yet unable or unwilling to take on the issue itself and reflect on how Purushottama's thinking went. He never even asks him what the reasons for his disbelief are.
When Purushottama decides to leave, Prabhupada releases him from his service without making difficulties. He even makes sure the boy has enough money to travel back! And afterwards, he comments to Satsvarupa: "I can understand that he had no faith in me.
But how could he disbelieve the sastra?"
It's humble, touching. And yet: Moon or no Moon, the issue is how we are supposed to use our brains: for discernment or only for memorizing dogma.
For Prabhupada, thinking needs only be engaged with when we decide to surrender and serve God. Once this is done, the less we think about spirituality, the better.
As Prabhupada once said, "take the essence".Yes, he said that. But try questioning an "inessential" detail (say, the exact number of Ugrasena's bodyguards, or Arjuna's skin color) and see how he reacts.
I think that the reason why Prabhupada gets all the heat is because he was arguably the most reported prominent guru in recent times.
Yes, the more power the leader is given, the more justification for scrutinizing what he said. If we were to spend years picking on my grandmother's views on Jews and non-Catholics, I would say we are being just mean, have an axe to grind, need to get on with our lives, "and besides, one does not speak ill of the departed." But Prabhupada is not just some little old grandmother, and in a sense he is not departed as long as there are people who follow him as their ultimate authority.
By this, I mean that almost everything he said was placed on record. His books are one thing, but his personal letters were collected after his passing (which could contain any number of personal and intimate advice) and also most of his conversations were tape-recorded and made into a ministry. Most gurus have the luxury of only revealing their thoughts in well-crafted books. I am sure that if Ramana Maharshi, Ramakrishna, or any other 'great' were given the letter, tape-recorder and video treatment, we would be arguing about their personal prejudices today whatever they may have been.
Yes! Well said. I sometimes wonder what kind of stuff Jesus really said. We should perhaps be grateful no one followed him with a tape recorder.
For example, it has become almost a truism that Prabhupada "hated" women, but no one ever talks about his personal and friendly (or even fatherly-like) dealings with them what to speak of what he has done for women in terms of spirituality.
A valid and important point about Prabhupada promoting women to a position more equal to that of men in spiritual practice. But when you say "no one ever talks about his friendly dealings," I wonder who you listen to and how things could have changed so diametrically over some 5-10 years. When I and Ek spoke about Prabhupada's women quotes, we always -- always! -- got the argument about his friendly dealings back. It was like a broken record. And the idea seemed to be that it overrode our points and ended all discussion.
In terms of influence over followers' attitudes, the guru's behavior is only as important as the degree to which it is seen and known. Meaning the most important behaviors will be those that are
frequent, public, official and recorded. His friendly dealings with a limited number of his (mostly early) women disciples do not influence ISKCON nearly as much as those hundreds of disparaging remarks in his purports, lectures, and conversations.
