The View from Inside the Cracker Barrel
BY: JANMASTAMI DAS
Mar 27, WEST VIRGINIA, USA (SUN) — One of ISKCON's current and more prolific bloggers is Bhakta Eric, who recently posted this alleged "spiritual knowledge". Clearly, if the ISKCON he purports to speak for felt that he was misrepresenting the facts, they would admonish him rather than making him a contributing editor at the Planet ISKCON. If, however, the points that the powers that be want made are as volatile and politically incorrect as some now being brought up, it would behoove them to have a surrogate speak "the philosophy" vicariously for them.
Aside from inane postulates such as "In the original Sanskrit, it is a list: those of lower birth, women, vaisyas, also sudras. But in Srila Prabhupada’s translation the list is describing “lower birth.” He describes “lower birth” as women, vaisyas and sudras." While I don’t believe he was exposing a prejudice here, he certainly could have phrased it in a clearer way". And, "In no other Gaudiya-Vaisnava translation and commentary that I’ve seen is it translated as such."
We find accusations about the various errors he finds in Srila Prabhupada's writings. One must be struck with wonder as to whom this bhakta aspires to seek initiation from. One who feels the need to issue his bhakta's eye view of Srila Prabhupada's mistakes, complete with his analysis and corrections, must surely find some of ISKCON's "in good standing" gurus highly attractive.
The magnitude of the deviation is obvious when some overly pampered bhakta has the audacity to criticise Srila Prabhupada's Bhaktivedanta purports because the idiots that he has been reciting Gita with for his entire time in association with ISKCON have no real understanding or appreciation of the mass of information they almost have at their disposal. These are the times we find ourselves immersed in. Can the massive correction be far off?
Eric's Blog
Bhakta Eric, USA: "Though *who* may be of lower birth?
A little while ago, I wrote an entry entitled “Questioning Srila Prabhupada.” This is the first toe-dipping into that arena.
The quote in question is from Bhagavad-gita 9.32:
O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth-women, vaisyas [merchants], as well as sudras [workers]-can approach the supreme destination.
What is actually being said is those that take shelter in Krishna can approach the supreme destination. That’s the whole intent of the verse.
Both Krishna (in the original Sanskrit) and Srila Prabhupada (in the translation) mention “women, vaisyas and sudras.”
In the original Sanskrit, it is a list: those of lower birth, women, vaisyas, also sudras. But in Srila Prabhupada’s translation the list is describing “lower birth.” He describes “lower birth” as women, vaisyas and sudras.
This, of course, is where the controversy is.
In no other Gaudiya-Vaisnava translation and commentary that I’ve seen is it translated as such. The verse is a great one. It is saying that love of God is available to anyone without discrimination. However, it also appears that Srila Prabhupada is discriminating against women, vaisyas and sudras, calling them “lower birth.”
To me, this term is not so much insulting as it is truthful. I have always taken it to mean “worse situation from birth.” Technically, the word “papa-yonayah” means “troubled womb.”
If someone is, for instance, born a black woman or in a working class family, it’s probably going to be a tougher life than someone born as a while male in a rich family. That’s just a fact. And technically, one would be a “higher birth” and the other a “lower birth.”
I don’t see this particular verse as Srila Prabhupada saying that “women are worse than men.” The real purport is that everyone is eligible, no matter your social status.
Like I said before, the original Sanskrit and every other translation avoids this confusion and does not claim that “women, vaisyas and sudras” are of a lower birth. But it does mention “papa-yonaya” - basically troubled families.
Why Srila Prabhupada chose to translate it this way is beyond me. While I don’t believe he was exposing a prejudice here, he certainly could have phrased it in a clearer way. After all, this is a very anti-prejudicial statement by Krishna.
Again, my take on it is that women, sudras, people from troubled families or pretty much anyone that’s going to get a crappy end of the stuck due to how they were born and where (black, gay, poor in a place that is prejudiced against them) is, by definition a “lower birth.” It’s not going to be an easy life because of the situation at birth.
“Lower birth” is a material designation, it has nothing to do with the spiritual (as this verse says). However, Srila Prabhupada’s choice to translate it like this could easily turn off women (right away) and workers/farmers when they figure out what “sudras” and “vaisyas” are. Someone could easily take this to mean that Srila Prabhupada is being prejudiced against them - and in his translation that appears to be so.
If he had translated it as it was in Sanskrit and as other acaryas and gurus in our line have translated it, it would be much clearer and wouldn’t require a long explanation."
