Srila Prabhupada

[philosoraptor]

First of all, I want to apologize to fellow members for rendering my honest opinion about Prabhupada into harsh statements. I will do my best exercise better diligence on this. That being said, this does not change my view of the man, and I still feel that opinions should not be suppressed in the interest of critical thinking.

If there are people who disagree with me on this, then fine - that shouldn't be grounds for worldwide condemnation, shock or horror. The fact of the matter is that I do have valid opinions of the man that should be considered even if you don't agree.

Frankly, if I was a Hindu I'd be pretty upset that he used Vedic literature to channel his racist and sexist views (and yes, they are just that).
AG

I'm sure the ISKCON devotees really appreciate your heartfelt apology for calling their guru a racist and a sexist, and then doing it again in the same breath. You're a really classy guy, atheist.

[yajvan]

　
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namast�

First of all, I want to apologize to fellow members for rendering my honest opinion about Prabhupada into harsh statements. I will do my best exercise better diligence on this. That being said, this does not change my view of the man, and I still feel that opinions should not be suppressed in the interest of critical thinking.

Critical thinking is welcomed... name calling, well, not so much.

iti śivaṁ

[Atheist Guru]

Philosoraptor - First of all, there is no need to adopt a hostile tone with me. We just have a difference in opinion that's all. While you think that I have little or no class for those opinions, I'm not going to reciprocate simply because I do not know you personally.

With that in mind - do you honestly think that I applied those labels to SP for no reason whatsoever? Tell you what - why don't you show me where SP clearly asserts that women are equally intelligent to men and that they must be given equal rights? We can reconcile them with ten instances to the contrary and have a discussion. Sound fair?

Finally, my apology was to other members of this forum for the delivery of my opinion and not the opinion itself. I cannot control who accepts it or not. I did not arbitrarily insult the Hindu philosophy or the large section of its followers.

Thanks,
AG

PS - I think you have a great screen name!

[Atheist Guru]

　
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namast�



Critical thinking is welcomed... name calling, well, not so much.

iti śivaṁ

Agreed. Now if you could kindly apply that standard to ALL members, I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks,
AG

[ShivaFan]

Namaste All

One quick clarification so there is no misunderstanding.

I am not saying, that the devotees were gang members. Devotees or HK's as members of ISKCON, were devotees. Period. Not gang members. What needs to be understood is that, during those early days, most centers of ISKCON activities in the US were in dangerous cities, tough areas, and the devotees dedicated to Prabhupad lived in some hard circumstances. But these young boys were strong, ready and able.

They certainly were not "whimps". And they did what was required to protect Prabhupad from the elements.

Om Namah Sivaya

[philosoraptor]

Philosoraptor - First of all, there is no need to adopt a hostile tone with me. We just have a difference in opinion that's all. While you think that I have little or no class for those opinions, I'm not going to reciprocate simply because I do not know you personally.

Pranams. Well, if I said that I thought you were an opportunist and a Western chauvinist, I assume you won't take it personally. After all, you don't seem to think calling someone racist or sexist should be construed in a negative way. You'll pardon me for pointing out that, in my experience, many people who object to Prabhupada's social views are just masking deeper but politically incorrect objections to traditional Indian cultural attitudes about class and gender relations. Hence, my skepticism. It's easier to single out one guru as a sexist rather than attack the culture as a whole. It looks like JaiRadhe isn't going to take us up on acknowledging her chauvinism against Hindu culture. Will you?

With that in mind - do you honestly think that I applied those labels to SP for no reason whatsoever?

No. I just noted that you reactivated a previously inactive thread, ignored all conversation that we had on this subject earlier, and then restated the OP's conclusions while completely ignoring all evidence which contradicts your claims. Any 7th-grader can make one-sided assertions, but one-sided arguments aren't a sign of critical thinking. Your contention is that he was racist despite initiating non-Indians, and that he was sexist despite initiating women, and that too against the standard of the tradition he claimed to represent. Does that sound even remotely coherent to you?

[shian]

Acarya is a human, even if a God incarnation, He also life in human world. Then human see anythings is never perfect, until they see something is suitable with their own mindset.

Not take refuge or not beliefe , or feel not suitable with one or some Acharya is normal.

Everyone can follow and refuge to the which Acharya they like.

But we must understand basic ethics to respect other Acharya and even other Sampradaya. Even if we dont agree with his teaching, just respect him.

My self, not agree with some of teachings of Prabhupad, but i think this is normal and i still respect him. I like to read and know his great devotion love to Sri Krsna.

[Atheist Guru]

Your contention is that he was racist despite initiating non-Indians, and that he was sexist despite initiating women, and that too against the standard of the tradition he claimed to represent. Does that sound even remotely coherent to you?

You obviously don't seem to understand racism or sexism. Being racist or sexist doesn't restrict itself to extreme separatism. So he initiated women against an existing sexist policy, and I'm sure they're falling over in gratitude because of it.

How does that remotely equate to his contention that women should be subordinate to men, that they are not deserving of the same education of men, being both culturally and spiritually inferior? It's not like said this in passing - he repeatedly made this point on several occasions.

Likewise, initiating non-Indians into his cult doesn't absolve him of his hideous statements asserting the inferiority of blacks and Native Americans.

I'm sure when it comes to spiritual matters, SP is a great source. But for social issues, I cannot agree with them, and it's regrettable that you do.

Anyway, we're done.

AG

[philosoraptor]

You obviously don't seem to understand racism or sexism. Being racist or sexist doesn't restrict itself to extreme separatism.

I've lived in the United States long enough to know what racism is from first-hand experience, and sexism from observation. Please excuse me if I fail to worship the American standard of social relations as an ideal worthy of emulation, as you seem to do.

So he initiated women against an existing sexist policy, and I'm sure they're falling over in gratitude because of it.

How does that remotely equate to his contention that women should be subordinate to men, that they are not deserving of the same education of men, being both culturally and spiritually inferior? It's not like said this in passing - he repeatedly made this point on several occasions.

Again, let me repeat that you are not writing anything that is even remotely intelligent. You are condemning Prabhupada solely because his cultural views do not match your own. This is the familiar pattern common to many ethnocentric critics, and you are no exception. Your arguments are one-sided and completely ignore all contradictory evidence.

For starters, people are not "equal." Even an atheist can appreciate that people have different combinations of nature (genetics) and nurture (upbringing) leading to different people with different innate capacities. Hindu theology acknowledges and explains this inequality by the different guNa and karma that each soul has, which explains their different stations in life. "Equality" is not the same thing as "equal rights." "Equality" is a spiritual concept, not a material one. As long as we live in this world we are not "equal."

If Prabhupada says that wives should not be independent of their husbands, then he is repeating the views that are held by smRiti and dharma-shAstras which are the foundation for traditional Hindu culture (caveats relating to recent human interpolations aside). Again, let me point out how your materialistic world-view leads you to a pathological understanding of Vedic culture. For a materialist, the idea of the wife cooking meals and keeping the house clean is seen as somehow "lower," because materialists place a greater value on professional accomplishments and earning money. Materialists look down on people who earn less and respect those who carry more political, social, and financial influence, regardless of what virtues they have. By contrast, traditionally-minded Hindu householders see yagna, rather than wealth-generation, as the basis for worldly life, and all activities including cooking are seen by them as seva. They don't place the same premium on career ambitions that materialists do, and they don't chafe at traditional duties because of some foreign idea that they should be "equal."

These two world views are as different as night and day. You have to understand their different underlying assumptions about reality before you can understand how people can be happy in a culture that prescribes different duties based on gender. Now, if you have a problem with Prabhupada for upholding his cultural values, then you have a problem with the culture, which makes you ethnocentric rather than enlightened, which of course you have every right to be. But let's call this what it is.

Also, you are letting your own prejudice show when you claim that Prabhupada wants women to be "spiritually inferior." Even I know that Prabhupada and other members of this sect uphold the greatness of many female devotees of Lord Krishna. They even say that the gopikas are the greatest devotees of Krishna, greater even than brahmA. This is not consistent with an attitude of misogyny. What it does show is that their worldview, while acknowledging gender inequality based on the bodily conception of life, also accepts the possibility of spiritual perfection regardless of gender. Again, not really consistent with a simple label of "sexism."

Likewise, initiating non-Indians into his cult doesn't absolve him of his hideous statements asserting the inferiority of blacks and Native Americans.

Prabhupada also made many negative statements about Indians and Hindus, another fact which you conveniently ignored. Is he prejudiced against Indian Hindus? Many Indian Hindus claim that he is. But he can't be prejudiced against his own people and against non-Indians at the same time. Some glimmer of intelligence is required to understand the complexity of the man and his views. Again, you just need to read what he wrote, instead of taking some comments and discarding the rest. Like his comments about Blacks and other racial groups, these remarks are based on his acknowledging the reality of what these races have become with respect to their abandonment of Vedic values. Even the purANa-s make frequent reference to barbarian races outside of Indian which abandoned Vedic culture and adopted sinful acts. Yet, those same purANa-s extol the path of bhakti in reforming even people from sinful races. Prabhupada also spoke of "low shudras," but then also glorified devotees who came from that background. On his deathbed, he was attended by many foreign disciples, something even his Indian godbrothers did not get to do - a little strange, don't you think, for someone whom you claim was so unabashedly racist?

A worldview that considers you to be different from your body, and yet conditioned by the body you temporarily inhabit, can explain why someone can criticize people based on their temporary identification with the body and yet associate with and even glorify such people for their spiritual accomplishments. This is why I said that your accusations of "racism" and "sexism" are one-sided and unwarranted. They simply do not take into account the Hindu world-view which distinguishes spiritual identity from material identity.

But for social issues, I cannot agree with them, and it's regrettable that you do.

Disagreeing with the standards of Vedic culture is not going to change what they are. One might as well disagree with Newton's three laws of motion, or with the fact that the sky is blue. Don't expect anyone to change their values merely because they fail to match yours.

[Atheist Guru]

*To All Readers: If you're reading this - Please read carefully. Philos, like many others has falsely implied that I have criticized Hindu and the Vedic Culture. This is completely false and the subject of theology hasn't even been brought up in this discussion - by me anyway.

Philos,

This is the last I'm going to post about this. You have grossly misrepresented my position by making all kinds of false allegations about me and the world-view you seem to think I have. So this is to put things straight. I've read what you have to say on this and this is my final response. After this, I hope we can just agree to disagree on this.

Again, let me repeat that you are not writing anything that is even remotely intelligent. You are condemning Prabhupada solely because his cultural views do not match your own.

No, I disagree with his social views, which do not fly with a lot of Hindus either. I actually give Hindu culture a lot more credit than SP's monolithic interpretations. And my intelligence isn't what's being discussed here, so I can only assume that this was a cheap way to discredit my opinion. So thank you for that.

Disagreeing with the standards of Vedic culture is not going to change what they are. One might as well disagree with Newton's three laws of motion, or with the fact that the sky is blue. Don't expect anyone to change their values merely because they fail to match yours.

Again - I'm NOT disagreeing with Hindu culture or Vedic standards; I disagree with SP's social views.... as in S-O-C-I-A-L... in case you didn't get it the first time. I particularly disagree with his views involving women and blacks. This is not the same as disagreeing with Hindu or Vedic culture, so stop accusing me of this.

Also, you are letting your own prejudice show when you claim that Prabhupada wants women to be "spiritually inferior."

SP has reiterated several times including interviews that women are intellectually and culturally inferior to men because of maximum brain size between men and women. SP believed that women are also not deserving of the same education as men and should be subordinated to the wishes of their husband to please them at all times. They should also not hold any positions of leadership nor should they be given equal rights to men - even in Western society. He quotes Professor Urquhart as being the source of this 'scientific fact' involving brain mass, from 1918.

And by the way, how exactly does that make me prejudiced for pointing that out?

"Equality" is not the same thing as "equal rights." "Equality" is a spiritual concept, not a material one. As long as we live in this world we are not "equal."

SP said that women SHOULD not be given equal rights to men. Is that plain enough?

Again, you just need to read what he wrote, instead of taking some comments and discarding the rest. Like his comments about Blacks and other racial groups, these remarks are based on his acknowledging the reality of what these races have become with respect to their abandonment of Vedic values.

Blacks abandoned Vedic values? What evidence do you have that Africans or African Americans as a whole, were once devout followers of Vedic values?

To SP - blacks WERE sudras, even if they drove a Rolls Royce he would refer to them as 'third class negroes driving a first class car'. So it wasn't a matter of status, it was purely about race. Now what do you call somebody who labels an entire race as 3rd class, irrespective of social status?

Like I said, I'm no longer interested in discussing this with you. It's clear we're not going to agree on this, so if you're going to post unilaterally - feel free. However I am going to report any lies or misrepresentations of my opinion to Satay should I encounter any more.

I'm going to continue my conversations with friendlier people that I've met on this forum.

Thanks for your time.
AG