Bg 9.32 appears to imply that women are of lower birth, included among the pāpa-yonayaḥ, the sinful. At first, this verse appears to discriminate women, but only when we fail to consider the context.
Prabhuji actually this verse has editorial mistake. This was pointed by Srila Bhaktivedanta narayana goswami maharaj himself. There, after the translation of the word pāpa-yonayaḥ(of lower birth), comma was to come insted of hyphen, but because of editorial mistake in today's version hypen is there.
In the orignal version of Bhagwat Gita, i.e Bg asitis 1968, there is the following translation given:
"O son of Pritha, anyone who will take shelter in Me, whether a woman, or a merchant, or born in a low family, can yet approach the Supreme Destination."
But prabuji NM was very special to Srila prabhupada so much so that Srila prabhupada requested that he should be one giving him samadhi and guide devotees....and as far as I have understood NM doesn't say he doesn't accept Srila prabhupada's translation he says that the translation is not what Srila prabhupada would have intended to write..which I think he can say since he and srila prabhupada very very close friends.
And even if we don’t consider NM, in 1968 edition Srila prabhupada himself categorized paap yonayah as a different catagory..Infact near the end of the introduction of today's versions of Bhagwat Geeta as it is too paapa yonayah is treated as seprate catagory in the translation.
Infact Shripaada Ramanujacharya also treated paap yonyaha as different catagory in his work.
That's how some try to justify it, and that's fine. Still, I prefer to work with the words he left on paper instead of someone's rationalization of what someone else said.
See how it develops:
Dogma: NM and Prabhupada were very good friends.
Question: But NM contradicted Prabhupada.
Rationalization: It must be because he understood Prabhupada better; therefore, he knew what he wanted to say better than the dictaphone.
What makes sense to me: Prabhupada repeatedly lectured from the book, if it was not what he wanted to say, he would have expressed it.
Prabhuji actually this verse has editorial mistake. This was pointed by Srila Bhaktivedanta narayana goswami maharaj himself. There, after the translation of the word pāpa-yonayaḥ(of lower birth), comma was to come insted of hyphen, but because of editorial mistake in today's version hypen is there.
In the orignal version of Bhagwat Gita, i.e Bg asitis 1968, there is the following translation given:
"O son of Pritha, anyone who will take shelter in Me, whether a woman, or a merchant, or born in a low family, can yet approach the Supreme Destination."
NM disagrees with Prabhupada's translations and commentaries in many other points. That's his right, but we accept what Prabhupāda left.
But prabuji NM was very special to Srila prabhupada so much so that Srila prabhupada requested that he should be one giving him samadhi and guide devotees....and as far as I have understood NM doesn't say he doesn't accept Srila prabhupada's translation he says that the translation is not what Srila prabhupada would have intended to write..which I think he can say since he and srila prabhupada very very close friends.
And even if we don’t consider NM, in 1968 edition Srila prabhupada himself categorized paap yonayah as a different catagory..Infact near the end of the introduction of today's versions of Bhagwat Geeta as it is too paapa yonayah is treated as seprate catagory in the translation.
Infact Shripaada Ramanujacharya also treated paap yonyaha as different catagory in his work.
That's how some try to justify it, and that's fine. Still, I prefer to work with the words he left on paper instead of someone's rationalization of what someone else said.
See how it develops:
Dogma: NM and Prabhupada were very good friends.
Question: But NM contradicted Prabhupada.
Rationalization: It must be because he understood Prabhupada better; therefore, he knew what he wanted to say better than the dictaphone.
What makes sense to me: Prabhupada repeatedly lectured from the book, if it was not what he wanted to say, he would have expressed it.