Solving contradictions to Prabhupada's words

Sometimes, statements from other Vaishnavas as well as translations or interpretations of passages from previous acaryas may appear to contradict Srila Prabhupada. What to do in such cases?

One point that we often come across is statements from other Vaishnavas as well as translations or interpretations of passages from previous acaryas that appear to contradict points made by Srila Prabhupada. What to do in such cases?

First of all, there is a hierarchy that should be observed. Prabhupada is one of the main acaryas of our sampradaya, and surely the most exalted in recent times. Other Vaishnavas may be very senior from our point of view, but they are still junior if compared to Srila Prabhupada. Therefore, if one of them starts to contradict points made by Prabhupada, this is something that should put their qualification in question, not the qualification of Prabhupada, who is, in this case, the higher authority. The best course of action in such cases would be to question the devotee in question and, based on his or her answer, decide if we should continue listening or not.

However, different speakers often navigate through it in a few different ways.

Some claim that Prabhupada spoke just the ACBD, and they are bringing higher teachings. Usually, they don't say this directly themselves, but they say it to their disciples, who in turn spread the message. In the end, is the same. I don't think someone who claims this should be taken seriously.

The second is by using the arguments that the books have been changed, and therefore, they don't convey what Prabhupada said. Most of the time, this argument is used in a broad way, attempting to provoke an emotional response. “The books have been changed!” without concrete evidence of where or how, in a false premise fallacy without substance.

In this case, one should be challenged to provide evidence, like an older edition or manuscript that indeed proves that there was a modification that changed the meaning of the text. The text of original books from Prabhupada can be found easily online, so it's easy to verify such claims. If proof of such changes leading to a change in the meaning of the text in specific passages is not found, the argument should be rejected.

The third is by followers claiming that the senior in question is a pure devotee and therefore he is speaking from the absolute plane and can't be wrong. This can be used as some kind of sacred cow fallacy, argumentum ad verecundiam, or appeal to fear, where a statement is presented as beyond question because a supposedly pure devotee says so, manipulating the audience to accept it.

Since many will fear arguing against a "pure devotee" and thus committing offenses to a supposedly great soul, this often wins the argument. The point is that one can't be accepted as a "pure devotee" or as an incarnation just based on vox populi, but only by their symptoms and empowerment. Prabhupada showed it by successfully spreading Krsna Consciousness in the West and then back to India, writing his books, and so on. If another supposedly pure devotee is speaking against him and trying to diminish his position, the real qualifications of such a "pure devotee" should be questioned based on his practical actions. Just speaking well and being able to amass a few fanatical disciples is not proof of anything.

What to do about passages from the scriptures and from previous acaryas that appear to contradict conclusions by Srila Prabhupada? The point is that most of what our acaryas wrote was written in Sanskrit, or sometimes Bengali, two languages most of us are not familiar with; therefore, we usually study based on translations. Translations are, however, highly subject to interpretation because words have multiple meanings, and often the language is metaphorical. Just one word can often completely change the meaning of the verses.

See this verse from the Mandukya Upanisad on which I was working recently, for example:

amātraś caturtho'vyavahāryaḥ prapañcopaśamaḥ śivo'dvaitaḥ
evam onkāra ātmā eva
samviśaty ātmānam ātmanā ya evam veda

This is the translation of an indian scholar based on the interpretation of Sankaracarya:

“That which has no parts (soundless), incomprehensible (with the aid of the senses), the cessation of all phenomena, all bliss, and non-dual Aum, is the fourth and verily the same as the Ātman. He who knows this merges his self in the Self.”

It gives the idea that God is impersonal, has no form or qualities, and is incomprehensible. This Supreme Self is identical to the individual soul, and when we become free from matter, we merge into it.

That’s how the same verse sounds when translated according to the conclusions of Srila Madhvacarya, taking into account the subtleties of the text (translation mine):

“The unlimited and indivisible fourth is beyond sensory experience, beyond actions and interactions. He brings the cessation of all material phenomena. He is beyond material duality, the destroyer of false knowledge, and fully blissful. This Omkāra is indeed the Supreme Self. One who knows this attains the Supreme Self, entering into the spiritual nature by His grace.”

You can see that the conclusion is vastly different. God is a person, and He has a form and qualities, but is fully spiritual. When we become free from ignorance, we can join Him in His abode by His grace.

The original verse doesn’t say God is impersonal or that we merge into him; these ideas are imposed on the translation I mentioned.

As you can see, changing the interpretation of just one or a few words can completely change the meaning given in the translation. In general, one should never accept any kind of translation from any source that is not fully accepted as authoritative. First of all, the original Sanskrit should be demanded, and then checked by a reliable scholar who properly understands the conclusions of our line.

Even when the translation of a particular verse is confirmed, there is still the discussion of the meaning based on the verses that come before and after, and the general conclusions of the text, which is yet another complete layer of discussion. Usually, to give a good translation, one has to study the whole book and available commentaries. As you can see, it is not as easy as many think.

As a conclusion, it can be offered that we are still a long way from properly understanding everything Prabhupada taught in his books, and it is quite possible that a number of points we accept as truth in our movement may not be the proper understanding. Our comprehension of the teachings of Prabhupada is still evolving, and what to say about fully understanding all scriptures. However, discussions regarding this should be conducted within the purview of Prabhupada's teachings. We should apply the principles Srila Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa gives in his Govinda Bhāṣya (and Jīva Goswami also explains in his Sat-Sandarbhas), interpreting quotes in the context of the whole passages, and passages in the context of the whole book and the general teachings, finding interpretations that don't contradict other passages. The hierarchy of books, classes, and letters should also be observed. Letters and conversations often contain provisional instructions and can't be used to sustain anything unless in harmony with general passages from books. Lectures should be taken as more authoritative than letters, but the instructions in the books should receive precedence.

We can see that the ritvik theory, for example, is based on just the interpretation of a few letters and conversations. It doesn't find support in the books or even lectures, which in fact directly contradict it. Proponents of incorrect theories often try to put the instructions in letters and conversations on the same level as the instructions in the books, which causes all kinds of contradictions. There are letters and conversations that authorize devotees to divorce, and even to eat meat in certain circumstances. It doesn't mean we should all do it.

Works of other acaryas should not be put against the works of Prabhupada. Rather, they should be taken as just explaining the same topics from different perspectives. Most of the works of previous acaryas were written in Sanskrit, which can often be interpreted in many different ways. When a translation appears to contradict a passage from Prabhupada, the quality of the translation or interpretation should be questioned. More often than not, it is just a case of a translator interpreting the text according to their own bias, and thus failing to convey the proper meaning of the text.

---

Any question? Post it in the comments, I will do my best to answer. If you think this post can be useful for others, feel free to share it.