How do we understand Prabhupada’s seemingly anti-woman statements?

Podcast:

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

Summary

A nuanced exploration of how to contextualize controversial or casual statements made by spiritual leaders like Srila Prabhupada through historical lenses and textual analysis.

• Distinction Between Scripture and Casual Remarks: Prabhupada never claimed that every personal opinion or casual comment he made should be treated as infallible shastra (scripture), noting that his authority lay strictly in repeating core scriptural truths.

• Influence of Time and Culture: Many statements reflecting patriarchal views or historical perspectives were products of their specific era, influenced by the prevailing social conditions and culture of the time.

• Historical Lens on Sensitive Topics: Comments regarding figures like Hitler must be understood through the historical viewpoint of colonial Bengal, where British exploitation and the 1943 famine created intense anti-British sentiment, and the full atrocities of the Nazi regime were not yet widely known.

• Lived Experience vs. Recorded Words: Despite certain provocative statements preserved on the internet, none of Prabhupada’s female disciples who worked closely with him ever felt demeaned or looked down upon by him.

• The Four Levels of Hermeneutics: The Shastriya Valley Council classifies Prabhupada’s statements into four distinct tiers—descriptive, supportive, application, and tangential to Siddhanta (core philosophy)—allowing followers to properly contextualize casual remarks.

• Social Application vs. Transcendental Teachings: Core transcendental philosophy remains constant, but the social application of teachings naturally shifts and adapts across different circumstances, generations, and moral standards.

Full Transcription

There are statements which can seem anti-women in scripture. But my understanding is, Prabhupada never expected that every single statement that he made would be treated like shastra by his followers.
Prabhupada practically never written such kind of statements in his books. There are certain statements in books which can be understood. It’s almost like every casual statement that Prabhupada made has been preserved and publicly put in the public domain in the internet.
There are times when Prabhupada made certain statements. And then when he was, when the problems with those statements were pointed out, Prabhupada retracted those statements. So, for example, once Prabhupada quoted from the Aquarian Gospel.
He says, you know, your Jesus Christ, he had come to Jagannath Puri. And he learned from the Brahmanas over there. And now after that, another devotee asked, Prabhupada, is this Aquarian Gospel bona fide? Prabhupada said, it’s a gospel, isn’t it? He says, no, the name is there, but it’s just a recent book.
So, that part about Jesus is nice. But Prabhupada never quoted it after that. So, the point is that an Acharya, Acharya is here.
So, an Acharya has learned scripture from the previous teachers. But the Acharya is also at a particular time in a particular place. And Acharya has also learned certain things from the prevailing culture of those times.
Now, those are, you could say, the Acharya’s personal opinions. So, did Prabhupada claim infallibility on every single personal opinion that he had? He never did that. He said, to the extent I am repeating Shastra, I am perfect.
So, now there were, at the time when Prabhupada appeared, there were certain conceptions in society. Society was patriarchal, no doubt. So, those are Prabhupada’s personal statements.
And now, you can say, okay, they are not scripture. Okay, even if you say they are not scripture. But you say, how can Acharya have statement like that? See, we cannot judge people from a previous generation by our moral standards.
Because things keep changing. So, how we view society, there is, there are transcendental teachings and there are social application of the teachings. Social application is going to change according to the circumstances.
And, as I said, there was another time when Prabhupada made certain statements about blacks. And then Satsvarupa Maharaj said, Prabhupada, this would be very provocative. He said, remove it.
That was the first kind of Shrimad Bhagavatam, Prabhupada removed it. Unfortunately, now, we don’t have Prabhupada with us. So, can we remove those statements? What do we do with those statements? It’s a big question.
What we do know, that none of the women who were with Prabhupada, who gave their life to Prabhupada, felt that Prabhupada looked down upon them. Felt that Prabhupada demeaned them or derided them. They were rebellious women, they were free women.
They all had their own lives and their own careers. They didn’t give them up just to come under thumb of some male chauvinist. They were inspired by Prabhupada.
So, you could say that Prabhupada’s acharya is there, the way he conducted himself. And Prabhupada’s pracharya is there. His, what he wrote.
So, his acharya is in my understanding more important. But unfortunately, although many of his, the way he interacted with people, the way he dealt with situations has also been written down in books. But what is more prominent is his teachings.
And sometimes those teachings would reflect the way he conducted himself. So, these kind of statements, I would suggest, they are in scripture, there is something which is prescriptive and something which is descriptive. So, that is descriptive, often refers to the kind of situation that was there at that time.
So, Prabhupada said something like, Hitler was not such a bad person. The British spoiled him by bad publicity. Now, is that true? Well, if we know Prabhupada was in Bengal.
And Bengal, Subhash Chandra Bose, Bengal actually, they talk about the Jews, about 15 million Jews or 8 million Jews being killed by Germany. But 3 million Bengalis, 3 million people died in India because of famine. And that famine was largely caused by the British.
It was not nature alone. Two things. First is that the British didn’t want Japan to conquer.
But they couldn’t defend. So, they followed what is called scorched earth policy. Just destroy all the crops.
Destroy all food granaries and everything. So that the Japanese would have to wait for food supplies to come from Japan. And they would not be able to advance faster.
And then, second was in Japan, Japanese retreat happened. Then they could have provided food again. But they were just increasing, the ships were passing.
Their food wasn’t produced in Australia. Australia was not affected much. From Australia, ships were going all the way to UK.
So, the Indian Governor General begged to Winston Churchill, he said, people are dying on the streets. Please provide some food. So, he said, people are dying.
Why is Gandhi still alive? When will that old man die? So, he was completely apathetic, antipathetic. So, Prabhupada lived in that time. And at that time, what Hitler had done was not known.
Even Winston Churchill and Roosevelt and others, only when they visited Nazi concentration camps, then they saw the extent of the persecution of the Jews. For them, when they were fighting the Second World War, they didn’t fight the Second World War to counter the evil ideology of Nazism or to liberate the Jews. They fought it because it was just a threat to their power and their nation.
So, later, they realized the extent. So, Prabhupada didn’t know about that. From India’s perspective, from Bengal’s perspective, actually, Hitler seemed to be like a person who had supported Subhash Chandra Bose, who was liberating India from the British who were exploiting and almost annihilating Indians.
So, from that historical lens, we see, Prabhupada’s statement is understandable. Now, of course, Prabhupada said elsewhere that there have been great tyrants throughout history like Hiranyakashipani puts Hitler in that queue also, at least all such times. So, some incidental statements.
So, we have a hermeneutics course which we have designed as part of Shastriya Valley Council. So, we classify Prabhupada’s statements in four levels. They are describing Siddhanta, they are supportive of Siddhanta, their application of Siddhanta and their tangential to Siddhanta.
So, we have to see all statements in that light. Siddhanta is our core philosophy. Then, sometimes Prabhupada gives some statement to support, some contemporary evidence he may give to support that.
And then we apply the Siddhanta. But there are statements that Prabhupada makes which are not necessarily central to, they are not connected to Siddhanta at all. They are casual statements and they need to be treated casually.
So, was he biased? Well, those statements might give that appearance. But actually, if you look at how Prabhupada conducted himself, none of the, even his female disciples felt he was biased. Thank you.