If not for Bhaktivedānta Swāmī Prabhupāda I don’t know how almost any of us would have been favorably exposed to Krishna, especially not through the eyes of Śrī Caitanya. To not be deeply grateful to him for this would be embarrassing. But what is “gratitude”? And how does it relate to flaws that might exist in a person to whom we are grateful?
Just mentioning the word “flaw” after saying “Prabhupāda” evokes alarm and distaste in most of his followers, who deeply cherish a belief that, “he is perfect, flawless.”
Does gratitude demand that we refuse to see any flaw in a person? I believe gratitude should make us overlook a person’s flaws. The difference between “not seeing” and “overlooking” may seem small, but is extremely significant.
Śrī Rūpa says:
jane cej jāta-bhāve ‘pi vaiguṇyam iva dṛśyate
kāryā thathāpi nāsūyā kṛtārthaḥ sarvathaiva saḥ
– Brs 1.4.59
Maybe we see things like flaws
in someone with true bhakti.
We shouldn’t hate them for it.
Here, flaws are noticed but our evaluation of the person is not overturned by them. He supports this idea with a reference from Nārasiṁha Purāṇa:
bhagavati ca harāv ananya-cetā
bhṛṣmalino ‘pi virājate manuñyaḥ
na hi śaśa-kaluñac chaviḥ kadācit
timira-parābhavatām-upaiti candraḥ
The moon’s brilliance
is not humiliated by dark craters.
A heart shining with shimmering love for Bhagavān
is not overshadowed by its darker spots.
This reinforces Rūpa’s idea. We notice craters and dark spots on the moon, yet still think of it as being beautiful and bright. To admire the Moon’s beauty does not require that we pretend it has no craters.
The difference between not seeing flaws vs. overlooking flaws is especially important if the person in question is a role-model (“ācārya”), like Prabhupāda. If a follower cannot or is not allowed to differentiate flaws from virtues, they are doomed to emulate their role-model’s flaws. In fact, we emulate flaws with much more zeal and success then we emulate virtues, because we are much more conversant with them.
If a follower cannot or is not allowed to differentiate flaws from virtues, they are doomed to emulate their role-model’s flaws.
Thus, and with tragic irony, the apparently devotional and faithful concept of a “Perfect Prabhupāda” is the very thing that doomed ISKCON to disasters. Therefore I do not feel ungrateful by dispelling a few myths about his imperfections.
Myth 1: Prabhupada was a Scholar
Prabhupāda graduated from a four-year university. Does this qualify him for the title, “scholar”?
Myth 2: Prabhupada was a Sanskrit Scholar
Prabhupāda was conversant with Sanskrit and utilized it extensively. He translated Sanskrit works into English, with the aid of a grammar specialist and pre-existing translations and commentaries in his native tongue, Bengali.
To be a “Sanskrit scholar” among people who know no Sanskrit is another thing, but the traditional sense of the title implies extended formal study for up to twelve years. Prabhupāda studied the language for a year or two during university.
More importantly, Sanskrit scholars precisely explain concepts by reference to grammatical syntax. Prabhupāda never did so, except when summarily paraphrasing a previous expert’s commentary.
Myth 3: Prabhupada was a Gauḍīya Scholar
Certainly he had enough knowledge of Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava philosophy and practice to be able to spark an unprecedented amount of worldwide interest in it. However, this profound ability of his was decidedly more charismatic than scholastic.
The title “scholar” implies that one has attended schools. Prabhupāda, however, did not receive systematic or formal education from his guru (who himself also did not receive a traditional Gauḍīya education).
More to the point, a Gauḍīya Scholar should be fluent in Gauḍīya philosophy. Again, to be a scholar among people who no little or no understanding of a subject is another matter, but the traditional sense of the title “Gauḍīya Scholar” implies someone fluent in the conclusive expositions on Gauḍīya siddhānta given in Śrī Jīva’s Six-fold Sandarbha. Prabhupāda, however, seems not to have studied this text, evidenced from his lack of references to it, and, more importantly, his occasional significant contradictions of its key philosophical elements.
Myth 4: Prabhupada Knew Everything
“Krishna is the source of everything. Prabhupāda knows Krishna. Therefore Prabhupāda knows everything.” Embracing this logic, ISKCON considers Prabhupāda the highest authority on any topic – astronomy, archaeology, biology, nutrition, sociology, parenting, marriage, sexuality… anything.
Prabhupada allowed and even encouraged this; speaking as if he really was the most learned and experienced authority in each and every field. This might seem to be a significant character flaw: lack of humility. Shying away from this harsh judgement we could suggest that his naive followers needed a knight-in-shining armor – a supreme omniscient hero – and he played role “to increase their faith.” But even this is a very significant mistake on his part.
Firstly – a guru must uproot, not nourish, naivety in students. Faith not based on fact leads only to illusion. The simple fact is that no one is the topmost expert in every field.
Secondly – the concept of authentic authority is extremely crucial in any Vedic framework. By failing to respect or give any deference to authorities in various fields, Prabhupāda inadvertently set an example that undermines this absolutely essential principle of Vedic paramparā.
Myth 5: Prabhupada would have fixed ISKCON’s problems – like child abuse, domestic violence, and sexism – if only he was better informed about them.
It is a leader’s responsibility to know what is going on amongst their followers. If Prabhupāda really was under-informed about ISKCON’s tragic problems, then that was his flaw.
The children in ISKCON boarding schools consistently and copiously suffered horrifying tragedies of abuse, assault and rape. How could this not come to the attention of the man who set up that system, unless that man simply did not care enough about those children to sufficiently monitor their welfare?
An impartial mind would trace ISKCON’s domestic violence and child abuse directly to Prabhupāda’s abundant female-negative and family-negative teachings.
Regarding women, unless we posit that he was literally blind, it would be impossible to imagine that Prabhupāda didn’t notice all his female students being pushed into the back of the room and out into the hallways, not leading any temple function, and not sitting in any position of management. Prabhupāda was not blind, yet he did nothing to improve the condition of ISKCON’s women. The conclusion can only be that he didn’t care about their condition, or found nothing wrong with it.
Worse, it can be said that he promoted their subordination via his clear, constant denigration of women and families throughout his books, lectures, letters and conversations. Therefore, an impartial mind would trace ISKCON’s domestic violence and child abuse directly to Prabhupāda’s abundant female-negative and family-negative teachings.
Myth 6: Prabhupāda Would Never have Approved of “Zonal Acaryas.”
The way Prabhupāda ran ISKCON while he was alive was very similar to the way the zonal-ācāryas tried to run it after he died. For example:
Prabhupāda was non-cooperative with his peers (“Godbrothers”), generally forbidding his followers from any contact with them. The zonal-ācāryas were equally non-cooperative with one another, generally trying to isolate and insulate their zones.
Prabhupāda rejected his guru’s institution and its GBC in favor of autonomy. The zonal-ācāryas emulated this.
Prabhupāda took the role of an authority in fields that he had little or no experience or education in. The zonal-ācāryas followed suit.
Zonal ācāryas were very competitive with each other, destroying themselves and the individuals in their zones in the effort to be seen as more successful than the others. Were they not emulating Prabhupāda’s stress on measurable accomplishments – usually at the expense and sacrifice of the health, welfare, and spiritual development of the ISKCON individual?
Myth 7: Prabhupada was not Ordinary
Obviously, Prabhupāda was an extraordinary person who accomplished extraordinary things. This, however, does not mean he was not also a human being with a human background and human flaws.
There are probably two undeniable points in which Prabhupāda was significantly different from his followers: (1) he was born as an Indian Vaiṣṇava. (2) He was old. These are not insignificant points, but aside from them, he was in some ways quite similar to his followers.
Like them, he went to school. Not “Vedic gurukula” but British-operated schools, very similar if not identical to schools in Western nations at the time.
Like his followers, Prabhupāda was involved in politics and activism as a youth – supporting Gandhi and the struggle for Indian independence.
As is considered ordinary in normal society, Prabhupāda worked a regular job after finishing school. He opened and managed a pharmacy in Allahabad.
As ordinary in normal society, especially at the time, he got married. He fathered five children.
Unwilling to sacrifice his idealistic ambitions for their practical needs, and frustrated by their unwillingness to sacrifice for his causes, he simply abandoned them all.
At this point, he met his guru, and he began to neglect the pharmacy to focus on preaching. Money became scarce as his profits dwindled. Conflicts ensued in his family, as bills needed to be paid. Unwilling to sacrifice his idealistic ambitions for their practical needs, and frustrated by their unwillingness to sacrifice for his causes, he simply abandoned them all. He left his wife with five children – one son mentally handicapped, and one daughter unmarried.
He described this as “vanaprastha.” In so doing, he followed an extremely common path of justifying inability to provide for dependents, and shifting blame to them. Of course, his male followers emulated and idealized his example enthusiastically.
Myth 8: Prabhupāda Wanted to Spread Krishna Consciousness.
It may be more accurate to say he wanted to spread the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. If he wanted to make anyone Krishna conscious, his success is more doubtful.
If his main priority were making individuals Krishna conscious, his behavior would have been much different. He would have slowed down and focused on individuals. He never did. Instead he did the opposite: sacrificing the well-being of individuals in favor of the well-being of ISKCON’s specific goals.
Conclusion
The general narrative in explaining ISKCON’s sordid history is, “Prabhupāda was great, but his followers destroyed his work.” I have presented an opposite proposal. “Prabhupāda had un-admitted flaws. His followers destroyed his efforts by emulating them.”
The general narrative in explaining ISKCON’s sordid history is, “Prabhupāda was great, but his followers destroyed his work.” I have presented an opposite proposal. “Prabhupāda had un-admitted flaws. His followers destroyed his efforts by emulating them.”
Someone who is not used to hearing a negative word uttered in reference to Prabhupāda will be shocked, and probably assume I hate the man. On the contrary, I am grateful to him and appreciate how much I have benefitted from the efforts he made. It is because of that gratitude that I am compelled to point out the mistakes that continue to undermine his ultimate purpose.
Prabhupāda had flaws and faults, but that is not the problem. The problem is that he did not acknowledge them, and his followers refuse to. Until they can do so they are doomed to emulate them.
Vic DiCara's Astrology - Radically Classical, Radically Deep 
Leave a reply to Divyam Cancel reply