Why are Prabhupada’s non-confrontational quotes so less known and his confrontational quotes so well-known?
Podcast:
Here’s a corrected and refined version of your text, focusing on clarity, flow, and more precise language:
Question: We often hear devotees quote Srila Prabhupada’s strong statements, such as “hogs, dogs, and rascals,” yet they don’t always demonstrate Prabhupada’s accommodating willingness. Why does this discrepancy occur, and how can we reconcile these different approaches?
Answer: In my understanding, there are three main reasons for this phenomenon.
Firstly, especially for newer or younger devotees, it takes time to deeply understand the philosophy and appreciate the nuanced, multi-faceted positions on various issues. The natural tendency, therefore, is to gravitate towards sensational sound bites that capture attention. Many preachers have adopted this approach, circulating phrases like “fools, rascals” as if they encapsulate the entirety of Prabhupada’s teaching. For example, Prabhupada famously called democracy “demon-crazy.” This is a striking sound bite. However, was this the only thing he said on the matter? Did he tell democratic leaders they were “demon-crazy” when he met with them? No, he did not. There’s a tendency to take intellectual shortcuts in presenting Krishna consciousness. Instead of striving for a deep understanding of a subject, some simply find a sensational quote and present it. This has happened quite extensively. Being accommodating, understanding, and appreciating multiple perspectives, while stimulating contemplation, doesn’t create the same immediate sensation, leading to the widespread circulation of these sound bites.
Secondly, to some extent, it’s a generational factor. Many of Srila Prabhupada’s early disciples (though certainly not all), as I’ve heard from the disciples themselves, came from the counterculture movement. Having already rejected mainstream culture, they were drawn to aspects of Krishna consciousness that provided intellectual justification for their existing rejection of established norms – be it education, conventional culture, politics, science, or even mainstream religion. In a sense, it was a perfect match: they had already dismissed mainstream culture, and from Prabhupada, they found compelling reasons to do so. They naturally focused on these aspects. However, was this the only thing Prabhupada taught? No. If you read the personal memoirs of many of his disciples, you’ll discover countless multifaceted, warm exchanges. They cherish memories of Prabhupada’s intimate instructions and sweet dealings, not primarily his “smashing fools and rascals” moments. Thus, people come to Krishna consciousness from diverse backgrounds with particular needs, naturally gravitating towards and presenting those aspects that resonate with them.
Thirdly, consider Prabhupada’s significantly different approach in India. In India, Prabhupada primarily cultivated life members, with fewer people becoming formally initiated disciples. These individuals respected Prabhupada from a perspective of cultural nationalism: “These Westerners ruled us, and now they are following our culture. This is a cultural conquest, and Prabhupada is its commander.” They appreciated Prabhupada and contributed to his mission, but most life members maintained their own spiritual affiliations; many were leading disciples of other spiritual teachers, often from Advaitic backgrounds. When Prabhupada visited their homes, he would often see large pictures of these Advaitin teachers. Prabhupada didn’t criticize them; he simply channeled their service attitude. He appreciated them, and they appreciated him. Radhanath Swami recounts an incident: a prominent life member, who had rendered immense service to the Juhu temple, was nearing his passing. When devotees visited him, he was in tears, remembering Prabhupada’s sacrifice, how he built the Juhu temple, and how Prabhupada had personally spoken to him. Though officially initiated into a Mayavadi sampradaya, his heart was devoted to Prabhupada. This demonstrates that we cannot reduce individuals, or even Prabhupada himself, to a single dimension. We have often perceived Prabhupada through a particular lens, shaped by the needs of the time and audience.
Finally, let me be clear: I am in no way minimizing Prabhupada’s occasional strength. Yes, he was strong when necessary. However, being faithful to Prabhupada doesn’t mean we must always be strong, nor does it mean we must always be soft. We each have our particular nature and area of service. We must use our intelligence to determine how we can best contribute to the mission. Some will naturally adopt a “hard line” and attract a certain type of person. Others will be more sensitive and empathetic, attracting a different kind of individual.
Rather than asserting one approach as inherently “right” and the other “wrong,” my understanding is that Prabhupada is far bigger than any single conception we hold of him. I am by no means saying that someone who speaks strongly is not representing Prabhupada; they can quote Prabhupada, who indeed spoke strongly. However, we must consider the fruit of our actions: are we attracting people towards Krishna or alienating them? While some devotees may speak strongly and Krishna may send individuals who need that strong speech to them, we must discern the best way to serve the souls who come to us. Based on our nature and service, we should adopt the approach that works best.
To conclude, Prabhupada sometimes used a blacksmith’s hammer and sometimes a goldsmith’s hammer. We must discern, in our specific context, which “hammer” is required, and then use that.