How do we see an acharya’s comments on contemporary issues?

When Prabhupada comments on contemporary issues, say for example, he may say that Brazil was the place where Ravana's kingdom was there or he may say that scientists did not go to the moon or whatever. When he comments on contemporary issues, social issues, how do we see his comments? Prabhupada himself told Jayapratakam Maharaj that, you know, if you take one Acharya's comments, if you take one point, you can draw many lines to those points, you can draw many lines. So like that, if you just read one Acharya's works, you can interpret them in multiple ways.

So he said, if you have two points, you can draw one line through it. If you have three points, you can draw one line through it. So like that, we have to see the Acharya's teachings in the context of the previous Acharya's teachings, in the context of Guru's teachings.

Now Prabhupada, he did tell on a few occasions that, yes, Krishna dictated my books to me. But Prabhupada did not claim that was his authority in writing his books. He claimed his authority was that he was repeating the message of Guru Sadhu Shastra.

But then while repeating, he was giving contextual examples. So when he was giving contextual examples, then an Acharya can also sometimes acquire knowledge using prateksha and anumana. It is not that Acharya moves in this world with closed eyes, isn't it? And if the Acharya acquires knowledge using prateksha and anumana, and uses that knowledge to support some shastric point, then the nature of prateksha and anumana is that it may or may not be reliable.

And if the Acharya has acquired knowledge from prateksha and anumana, and somehow subsequent science proves that prateksha and anumana, subsequent developments prove that prateksha and anumana to be wrong, then that does not mean the Acharya's statement coming from Shabda Pramana is wrong. The Acharya's main point is true, but the prateksha and anumana example may be wrong. So in fact, I'll take the Karmaputra as an example for this, let's say our approach towards using prateksha and anumana knowledge should be very practical, it's like yukta vairagya.

Suppose I have to go for a preaching program, and I am going in a car. Now while I am going in the car, on the way the car breaks down, I have two options. One is I repair the car, or I get a new car, and I go on towards the program.

My goal is not just to become attached to the car. Similarly, so going to the preaching program is like helping people develop faith in Shabda. Using the car to go there is like using prateksha and anumana to help people to reach Shabda.

Just like by a car we can go faster, similarly, by using prateksha and anumana, because people have faith in prateksha and anumana, so by prateksha and anumana, people can, it helps people to develop faith in Shastra, in Shabda. But then the nature of prateksha and anumana is that it can be faulty, it can turn out to be wrong. So then what happens? We have two options.

If somebody says that, okay, you made this argument, you made this quote and this fact, but it's wrong, then we should be able to counter it, fix the car, fix the car means say no, but that researcher is saying this is defective, because this, this, this, so you counter it in their game, you repair the car, or otherwise take a new car, that means find another prateksha and anumana argument. So the prateksha and anumana can be falsified, because that is the nature of relativity of prateksha and anumana knowledge. But that doesn't mean that the Shabda has been falsified, and nor should we mistakenly give prateksha and anumana the authority that has come from Shabda.

So there are two mistakes we can make. Because a prateksha and anumana statement has been proven to be false, then we say that therefore Shabda also is false. That is wrong.

And secondly, if a prateksha and anumana statement is said by an Acharya, then to say that that is also Shabda, that is also wrong, because that is a supportive statement. So simple example is, Prabhupada sometimes said that the female brain is smaller than the male brain. And this he uses sometimes to prove that, to talk some philosophical points.

Now, if you today go to scientists, they say that actually there is no universal fact like that. So now, first of all it depends a lot, a lot of factors are there. First of all, it depends on the body size, the brain size is proportional to body size.

So a thin man's brain will be smaller than a fat woman's brain. And similar, then further the question is, does brain size necessarily reflect the intelligence size, reflect intelligence level. So now, Prabhupada made a statement and now, if suppose scientists more or less find out that it is not like that.

Females can have bigger brains, men can also have smaller brains. Now if we go back, Prabhupada was educated in Scottish Church College and in Scottish Church College, there was a professor, I think his name was R. Cart. So he was a strong anti-feminist and Tamal Krishna Maharaj has written a very good book, his thesis was on Prabhupada's teachings.

So then what he does is, he goes from Prabhupada's childhood and then he takes Prabhupada's statements, he takes other sources and then he says, what all Prabhupada acquired a prateksha anumana, means what all he learned from his other sources, what all did he learn from his college. And then he shows how Prabhupada integrated that within his understanding of shabda and his presentation of shabda. But he kept shabda as the highest.

So there was this professor, who in his class would quote a scientist, Prabhupada went to college in 1900 and 1920. So he quoted a scientist at this time, whose that scientist's idea was that female brain is smaller than male brain. And Prabhupada actually quoted that scientist at that time.

But now that scientist has become obsolete. So therefore, we shouldn't think that this has, Prabhupada is wrong over here. An acharya uses a prateksha anumana statement to make a philosophical point, then we should understand that it's not a philosophical statement, it's a prateksha anumana statement to prove a philosophical point.

So we should be able to differentiate that. Similarly, now currently I am a part of an editorial team, which is working on trying to edit the Leela Amrit. Somehow in his contemporaries have got this idea that Prabhupada's books are revelations and not one word should be changed.

And Prabhupada himself wanted editing. So anyway, what is the current issue of debate? That there is a statement in the last volume of Leela Amrit somewhere, where Prabhupada said that by 2000, nobody will be able to live on the earth. Everybody will have to live underground, because there is so much pollution.

By 2000, everybody will have to live under the earth. Now, any person who reads this, obviously how do you understand this? So now when I asked this one devotee, he said, oh, in America there is one city which is completely underground. So we see that Prabhupada's prophecy is being fulfilled now.

Now actually that city has gone underground, it's a sign of development for them. They are not going underground because the earth is so polluted. So if we try to come up with this sort of lame proofs, somehow try to prove that Acharya's statement is correct, then it's useless.

We will not be able to appeal to intelligent people. Then what I did was, I went and did a lot of research. So Prabhupada had made this statement somewhere in 1975 or 76, I forget all the dates now.

But then I went back and started reading all the conversations that Prabhupada was having. And in one of the conversations, there was one devotee, or yes, some semi-devotee sort of person, he had told Prabhupada, he had got the report of one, some meteorological institute. And that had said that by 2000, nobody will be able to live on the surface of the earth because the earth is going to become so polluted.

And that institute was actually a dystopian institute. Dystopia means, utopia means one who believes everything is going to be perfect. Dystopia means one who believes everything is going to be dreadful.

So there are dystopian institutes which say, this is wrong, this is wrong, everything is wrong. So now, somebody had given that to Prabhupada. So, Prabhupada was simply quoting this institute.

So now, somehow, we, so then I told the editors, please remove this, or at least put a footnote explaining this. So several devotees agreed, others said, no, Lila Amrit, we cannot change it. So the point is, somehow, we don't have to be, we don't have a very simplistic understanding of scriptural truth, a simplistic understanding which forces people to, in order to have faith in scripture, that we have to give up our intelligence.

Now how can any intelligent person accept that nobody will live on the earth after 2000? No intelligent person can do that. And if we expect people to do this, people will not give up their intelligence, they will give up their faith. And we will be responsible for that.

So, an Acharya, if we find that Acharya has made statements like this, which are controversial, which are not so easy to understand, then we have to see the sources, from where are those statements coming. And if they are not coming directly from Shastra, then we have to understand that the Acharya himself may have acquired them from Pratyaksha Hanuman. And then they are social, contextual, based on circumstantial knowledge.

And it is quite practical. You know, one devotee wrote to Prabhupada, Prabhupada, you allowed devotees to wear civil clothes, and now all of them have started dressing like hippies, in the name of book distribution. And Prabhupada said, no more wearing civil clothes, start wearing dhoti, kurta, oil distribution, doing distribution.

And then what happened? Some other devotees came and told Prabhupada, Prabhupada, you have been misinformed. Actually, we are not wearing, some devotees might be wearing hippie clothes, but we are wearing proper civil dresses, shirt, pant, tie and everything like that. Oh, that is okay.

Then you can wear that. So, Prabhupada never claimed to be omniscient. Prabhupada never claimed to be omniscient.

Somehow what has happened is, after Prabhupada, there are many devotees who have had problems. And that is natural, because that is what happens after charismatic acharya disappears. But, this has created insecurity in the hearts of devotees.

Is this process right? Will it work? And, actually it will work, if you follow it properly. But, somehow, a simplistic way to deal with the insecurity of our faith is to ascribe to Prabhupada a level of infallibility, which he never claimed. You clear? You know, I want to be secure, but my practice, my faith is insecure.

So, what do I do? I try to shore up my faith by saying, everything that Prabhupada said is absolutely correct. Anybody who challenges it, that is a deviant, is this, this, this, that, that. But, you know, we don't have to do that.

We just understand Prabhupada's message properly, apply it, things will work in our life. So, regarding the moon landing, Prabhupada did not make an absolute statement that man did not go to the moon. Again, we have to look back.

Guru, Sadhu, Shastra. There is no statement explicitly in Shastra which says man cannot go to the moon. Bhakti Sahasrao Thakur did not say anything.

You can say Bhakti Sahasrao Thakur did not say because that issue was not there at his time. That is fine. But, the point is, there is no explicit statement which says that we cannot go to the moon.

And Prabhupada did not say all the time that he did not go to the moon. Different statements he made. You know, he was quite, in one sense, positive about the moon mission in his Bhagavata introduction where he says that we have endeavoured a lot to go to the moon, but we have not endeavoured to raise our consciousness.

If we just endeavour the half as much, we will make so much advancement. So, Prabhupada would say sometimes, even if they have gone to the moon, so what is the big deal about it? So, we don't have to take statements like this and make them absolute and unnecessarily make our philosophy unintelligible. So, actually, Prabhupada did a very, very courageous thing in incorporating social commentary into scripture.

Previous Acharyas have not done that. Vishwanath Chakravarth Thakur wrote his Saraswati Darshini and Saraswati Varshini at a time when the dark shadow of Mughal devastation of Vrindavan was still there all around him. But nowhere in any of his commentary does he mention anything about the Islamic devastation of the Vedic culture.

Why? Because his target audience is clear. Bhagavatam, he is not expecting the Muslims to study the Bhagavatam. He is writing for the scholars within the Vedic tradition.

So, he quotes various scriptures and he writes for them. So, most in the tradition, if you see, all the books were written primarily for the scholars. And that's why in the books generally do not contain much instructions.

For example, if you read Baldev Devji's commentary or Vishwanath Chakravarth's commentary, he will not say, therefore we should give up sense gratification, therefore we should do this, not so much. Why? Because that instruction was left for the oral tradition. Every village would have its own saints and gurus.

And in the oral tradition, they would say we should behave like this, we should not behave like that. Books, written tradition was primarily for scholars. And when you are talking with scholars, you don't tell them you have to give up sense gratification.

You tell them how this siddhant is, this is the correct understanding, this is the wrong understanding. So, in that sense, the previous Acharya's commentaries did not go into either practical application much or into social application. They practically stuck to philosophy and theology.

So Prabhupada actually did something very bold by incorporating social commentary into scripture. Why did he do that? Because his audience was so different from the original audience of the scripture, from the traditional audience of the scripture. Linguistically, culturally, intellectually, religiously, educationally, so different that he had to create a bridge.

Otherwise, this concept would not be intelligible. So, Prabhupada has done something very courageous by incorporating social commentary according to his time, place and circumstance. And what we should do is, rather than absolutizing this social commentary, we should be able to intelligently understand the essential principles and provide appropriate social commentary in our situation.

And that's how we will be able to continue the vibrant tradition that Srila Prabhupada has given us. Thank you very much.