Excerpt from The Bhagavata: Its Philosophy, Its Ethics, and Its Theology by Srila Bhaktivinode Thakura

"The Bhagavata teaches us that God gives us truth as He gave it to Vyasa: when we earnestly seek for it. Truth is eternal and unexhausted. The soul receives a revelation when anxious for it. The souls of the great thinkers of the bygone ages, who now live spiritually, often approach our inquiring spirit and assist in its development. Thus Vyasa was assisted by Narada and Brahma. Our Shastras, or in other words, books of thought, do not contain all that we could get from the infinite Father. No book is without its errors. God's revelation is absolute truth, but it is scarcely received and preserved in its natural purity. We have been advised in the 14th Chapter of 11th Skandha of the Bhagavata to believe that truth when revealed is absolute, but it gets the tincture of the nature of the receiver in course of time and is converted into error by continual exchange of hands from age to age. New revelations, therefore, are continually necessary in order to keep truth in its original purity. We are thus warned to be careful in our studies of old authors, however wise they are reputed to be.

Here we have full liberty to reject the wrong idea, which is not sanctioned by the peace of conscience. Vyasa was not satisfied with what he collected in the Vedas, arranged in the Puranas and composed in the Mahabharata. The peace of his conscience did not sanction his labors. It told him from within, "No, Vyasa! You cannot rest contented with the erroneous picture of truth which was necessarily presented to you by the sages of bygone days. You must yourself knock at the door of the inexhaustible store of truth from which the former ages drew their wealth. Go, go up to the fountainhead of truth, where no pilgrim meets with disappointment of any kind." Vyasa did it and obtained what he wanted. We have been all advised to do so.

Liberty then is the principle which we must consider as the most valuable gift of God. We must not allow ourselves to be led by those who lived and thought before us. We must think for ourselves and try to get further truths which are still undiscovered. In the Bhagavata we have been advised to take the spirit of the Shastras and not the words. The Bhagavata is therefore a religion of liberty, unmixed truth and absolute love."

I suspect that there are many members of ISKCON who aren't aware of an alarming decision made at this year's Mayapur meetings by the GBC. The entire list of resolutions was released on their website Dandavats.com. Buried in the lengthy formal parliamentary legalese was Resolution 311:

Whereas some of Srila Prabhupada's books contain sentences such as the following, which when taken in isolation may be considered derogatory to and offensive against women:

Although rape is not legally allowed, it is a fact that a woman likes a man who is very expert at rape. (SB 4.25.41, p.)

When a husbandless woman is attacked by an aggressive man, she takes his action to be mercy. (SB 4.25.42, p.)

Generally, when a woman is attacked by a man--whether her husband or some other man--she enjoys the attack, being too lusty. (SB 4.26.26, p.)

Whereas some ISKCON devotees may have used these statements out of context as an excuse to offend, neglect and abuse women;

Whereas some people who read such statements may consider them to be derogatory or offensive, may misunderstand what Srila Prabhupada actually means, and may not want to further read those books, notwithstanding the many other beneficial statements in them;

RESOLVED: That the GBC Body recommends to the BBT Trustees that the above quotes, and other such statements as determined by the BBT, be explained in endnotes or in appendices.

So here we have justifications and a decision made that will affect the future of ISKCON in ways which may not be apparent at first glance. I'm not happy with this. I expect more foresight from those who expect my support and reverence.

I'd like to address these official justifications in the subtle-as-a-brick approach that those who know me personally have probably come to expect.

Look the issue in the eye and deal with it.

I read one devotee's well-meant attempt to rationalize Srila Prabhupada's use of the word ‘rape'. He explained that what he meant was different from how we interpret ‘rape'. According to his explanation, Srila Prabhupada's idea of ‘rape' was simply passionate intercourse. Due to a linguistic shift from British colonial English to contemporary English the semantics attached to the word ‘rape' have changed.

This explanation isn't consistent with what Srila Prabhupada said in a morning walk May 11, 1975, in Perth, Australia (bolding and underline added):

Devotee (1): They said that the man cannot be convicted of rape if he honestly believes that the woman consented to his raping her.

Prabhupada: Yes, that is law always. Rape means without consent, sex. Otherwise there is no rape. There was a rape case in Calcutta, and the lawyer was very intelligent. He some way or other made the woman admit, "Yes, I felt happiness." So he was released. "Here is consent." And that's a fact. Because after all, sex, rape or no rape, they will feel some pleasure. So the lawyer by hook and crook made the woman agree, "Yes, I felt some pleasure." "Now, there is consent." So he was released. After all, it is an itching sensation. So either by force or by willingly, if there is itching, everyone feels relieved itching it. That's a psychology. It is not that the woman do not like rape. They like sometimes. They willingly. That is the psychology. Outwardly they show some displeasure, but inwardly they do not. This is the psychology.

Devotee (1): So what this law means is that anybody can rape anybody.

Prabhupada: There is no law; it is all lusty desire. All law or no law, these are all nonsense. The sastra has... It is lusty desire, that's all. Everyone wants to fulfill a lusty desires. So unless one is not in the modes of goodness or transcendental, everyone will like.

I included the rest of the selection so that the statement can be read in context. In no way is Srila Prabhupada condoning the act of rape. To take that meaning from this passage or his purports is cheating. Who would want to anyway? Unfortunately, I've heard that some supposed members of ISKCON have used such passages to justify horrendous acts to women.

After reading this passage it seems clear to me that when Srila Prabhupada wrote the word ‘rape' he meant sex without consent and he also meant to inform us that some women enjoy it, provided that the man is expert.

Certainly, there is something in such a claim that doesn't sit well with me but it is hard to dismiss outright considering the authority of the person who made it. Here, the person responsible for bringing me the most valuable knowledge I've ever been exposed to is pointing something out that I've never considered. It would be impudent of me, who claim to be his student, to not carefully deliberate over his explanation. Outright rejection of this statement may win the approval of others, but that's not the goal of my life.

Personally, I don't have any experience with rape. I've never done it and I never intend to. I have known a few women that have been through the experience and none of them claim to have enjoyed it. I don't doubt them either.

Correcting Srila Prabhupada's ‘incorrectness'

Is explaining these statements away with an endnote the way to resolve heterogeneous views? I don't think so. I do think that education is, in general, a good way to approach controversy, but to attempt to educate right alongside what Srila Prabhupada wrote sets a precedent that may have repercussions that  echo long after we are all dead and gone. The GBC, by Resolution 311, are giving license for anyone in the future to interrupt Srila Prabhupada's tried and proven delivery of the disciplic message.

Imagine Srila Prabhupada sitting in front of you giving you instructions. All of a sudden someone interrupts and says "What Srila Prabhupada really means to say here is ....". I'd prefer if we allowed Srila Prabhupada to speak for himself. After everything he has done, shouldn't we have that much confidence in him?

No need to think. We've done that for you. Shut up and eat your halava.

This GBC Resolution 311 is insidious. I'm very surprised that, on the one hand, I'm expected to see the GBC as the proverbial ‘hand of God' and live with such a decision and, on the other, risk being marginalized by expressing a contrary opinion. This is the only post that I'm aware of for which the GBC site Dandavats.com, in a totalitarian gesture, closed down comments. On their site we are welcome to waffle on and on about whether or not it's ok to hug someone of the opposite gender, accept a wage or eat chocolate; but on an issue that has such widespread and deep repercussions as this we are unceremoniously hushed.

Some may think that compliance to this type of hierarchical control is inherent in the consciousness of a Vaishnava. They may feel that remaining quiet and obedient is tantamount to maintaining the respect for authority necessary for sane existence in this world. Although this principle is sattvik, it is subject to circumstances. In other words, as we pine for a utopian situation where all of our leaders are infallible we should also be aware of the vast amount of evidence that shows otherwise. Besides, Vaishnava culture has a vibrant intellectual history - its not just about shutting up and eating your halava. We can respectfully disagree.

Why does this issue exist?

Some of the individuals pushing the hardest to allow annotations have much more on their agenda to upgrade our society from one that submissively hears from Srila Prabhupada and accepts his teachings to something that sheepishly acquiesces to contemporary thinking. This is exactly the opposite of parampara.

The reasons I'm giving here against this resolution are the very reasons they will give in support of it. I'm saying that this decision sets the precedent that anyone can change Srila Prabhupada's publications and their response is "Great! There's lots more in his purports that need changed."

The future according to Ekendra Dasa

Although I don't claim to be a social visionary, I think the future is obvious. ISKCON, like so many other religious organizations, will gradually and naturally develop into fairly distinct denominations over these types of polemics. The issue here not being that one group supports rape and the other doesn't, rather, one views Srila Prabhupada's teachings as absolute and the other sees them as relative. Personally I don't think that these diametric views can be reconciled within the same organization and that different social structures will eventuate to support both types of adherents.

If you don't believe me - just look at Christianity. When I was a child, my mother used to take us to a denomination known as ‘The Church of Christ' - emphasis on the word ‘The'. To get there we had to drive across town. Directly across the street from our home was a small church building with a sign out front that read ‘The Church of Christ'. I couldn't understand why we just didn't walk across the street on Sunday. As far as I could see, it was the same religion. When I grew up I learned that there were some minor differences in doctrine and practice and that I should pray for them to come around and see the light. Is it any wonder I began a search for a higher understanding?

I'm very grateful that my search for truth lead me to the teachings of His Divine Grace. I can't claim to understand everything written within his books; but, as a practicing and contributing member of ISKCON, I do hope that our society is healthy enough to allow me to voice disagreement with those who, however well-meaning, are intent to tamper with them.

Any comments? Please don't do it up like an Oprah Winfrey talkback session. Keep it respectful.

Blame. It's a miserable state of consciousness when we blame someone else for our misfortune. We disempower ourselves by adapting a 'victim mentality'. What is blame going to do besides perpetuate a cycle of action and reaction?

I blame you. You blame me. I hurt you. You hurt me.

The cycle goes nowhere because it's based in ignorance. All it takes is for one party to accept the blame and the cycle ends.

Today the majority of Australians felt the relief of accepting the blame for the wrongs inflicted upon the indigenous people of this continent. Although an apology can be seen as mere words, it can also mean a lot. In one sense, it slows down the cycle of delusion that arises from the blame game.

Srila Prabhupada gave us this brilliant verse and purport from Srimad Bhagavatam 1.17.22:

rājovāca
dharmaṁ bravīṣi dharma-jña
dharmo 'si vṛṣa-rūpa-dhṛk
yad adharma-kṛtaḥ sthānaṁ
sūcakasyāpi tad bhavet

TRANSLATION
The King said: O you, who are in the form of a bull! You know the truth of religion, and you are speaking according to the principle that the destination intended for the perpetrator of irreligious acts is also intended for one who identifies the perpetrator. You are no other than the personality of religion.

PURPORT
A devotee's conclusion is that no one is directly responsible for being a benefactor or mischief-monger without the sanction of the Lord; therefore he does not consider anyone to be directly responsible for such action. But in both the cases he takes it for granted that either benefit or loss is God-sent, and thus it is His grace. In case of benefit, no one will deny that it is God-sent, but in case of loss or reverses one becomes doubtful about how the Lord could be so unkind to His devotee as to put him in great difficulty. Jesus Christ was seemingly put into such great difficulty, being crucified by the ignorant, but he was never angry at the mischief-mongers. That is the way of accepting a thing, either favorable or unfavorable.

Thus for a devotee the identifier is equally a sinner, like the mischief-monger. By God's grace, the devotee tolerates all reverses. Mahārāja Parīkṣit observed this, and therefore he could understand that the bull was no other than the personality of religion himself. In other words, a devotee has no suffering at all because so-called suffering is also God's grace for a devotee who sees God in everything. The cow and bull never placed any complaint before the King for being tortured by the personality of Kali, although everyone lodges such complaints before the state authorities. The extraordinary behavior of the bull made the King conclude that the bull was certainly the personality of religion, for no one else could understand the finer intricacies of the codes of religion.

---------------------------

Here's a refreshing example of a contemporary political leader who today made an effort to stop the cycle of victimization and blame:

or view the video in its entirety here: http://media.smh.com.au/?rid=35435

The madhyama-vaisnava must serve each Vaisnava in accordance with his status. Only the uttama-vaisnava does not consider or analyse whether a Vaisnava is kanistha, madhyama, or uttama before he interacts with him. If a madhyama-vaisnava artificially adopts this mentality, he becomes an aparadhi, offender.

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu revealed these truths of Vaisnava etiquette in a very concise manner in His discussions with the residents of Kulina-grama. All His instructions on this topic are more significant for the madhyama-vaisnavas than the original Vedas. Actually, what is the definition of sruti -- the Vedas? The answer: The words of the Supreme Lord are Veda.

- Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Jaiva dharma Ch. 8: Nitya-dharma and Vaisnava Behaviour

Harvey Cox of Harvard Divinity School writes in his introduction to Prabhupada’s biography:

“Yet, it must be added, Srila Prabhupada was also a unique person. To say that the teachings of the ancient ones come to us through a series of teachers does not mean that the teachers are themselves interchangeable. If they were so faceless, there would be little point in writing a biography of any of them. But this life of Srila Prabhupada is pointed proof that one can be a transmitter of truth and still be a vital and singular person, even—in a sense I now feel safe to use—in some ways “original.” . . . At what almost anyone would consider a very advanced age, when most people would be resting on their laurels, he harkened to the mandate of his own spiritual teacher and set out on the difficult voyage to America. Srila Prabhupada is, of course, only one of thousands of teachers. But in another sense, he is one in a thousand, maybe one in a million.”

"In order to succeed, your desire for success should be greater than your fear of failure."
- Bill Cosby

From time to time I'm confronted with this question by devotees who've been hurt with their experience in ISKCON. I'm not minimising the need for growth and maturity - not at all. Because the individuals involved are not perfect and still subject to the influence of the modes of material nature some unsavory stuff happens as do all of the seeming injustices in the material world. Still I think its healthy to be grateful for the good things that have come our way and give credit where its due. The victim mentality is a dead end.

Yet there are some devotees who refuse to admit that ISKCON has ever helped them in their lives and tend to only focus on the negative issues. Whenever I end up in a conversation with such a person I think of this clip from a film (paid for in part by George Harrison) - enjoy!