Solving contradictions to Prabhupāda’s words

What to do when other sources publish translations and interpretations that go against conclusions given by Śrīla Prabhupāda, or try to deliberately undermine him?

One point that we often come across is statements from other Vaiṣnavas as well as translations or interpretations of passages from previous ācāryas that appear to contradict points made by Śrila Prabhupāda. Often, these are just apparent contradictions that can be solved by following the standard method. First, to verify the source, then check the context of the surrounding passages, and, finally, try to harmonize the conclusion with established conclusions instead of blindly accepting the claim. If it appears to be a real contradiction, it also helps enormously to take it as an unresolved issue until it can be fully resolved, instead of building a speculative doctrine around it.

There is also a hierarchy that should be observed. Prabhupāda is one of the main ācāryas of our sampradāya and the most exalted spiritual master in recent times, accepted as being empowered to fulfill the prophecy of the saṅkīrtana movement being spread in Western countries. Other Vaiṣnavas may be very senior from our perspective, but they are still junior if compared to Śrila Prabhupāda. Therefore, if one starts to intentionally contradict points made by Prabhupāda, this is something that should put their qualification in question, not the qualification of Prabhupāda, 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, and that’s what often makes the question dangerous.

Some claim that Prabhupāda 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. In the end, it’s the same. I don’t believe 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 Prabhupāda 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 Prabhupāda 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. Prabhupāda showed it by successfully spreading Kṛṣṇa 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 supposedly pure devotee should be questioned based on his practical actions. Just speaking well and being able to amass a few disciples is not proof of anything.

What to do about passages from the scriptures and from previous ācāryas that appear to contradict conclusions by Śrila Prabhupāda? The point is that most of what our ācāryas 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, 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 Śrila Madhvācārya, 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 verse, thus, does not say God is impersonal or that we merge into him; these ideas are imposed on the translation I quoted.

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 Prabhupāda 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 Prabhupāda is still evolving, and what to say about fully understanding all scriptures. However, discussions regarding this should be conducted within the purview of Prabhupāda’s teachings. We should apply the principles Śrila 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 ācāryas should not be put against the works of Prabhupāda. Rather, they should be taken as just explaining the same topics from different perspectives. Most of the works of previous ācāryas were written in Sanskrit, which can often be interpreted in many different ways. When a translation appears to contradict a passage from Prabhupāda, 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.

---

This is a publication for thoughtful readers who want to go deeper into Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I publish daily, trying to offer high-quality spiritual content, and all posts are available to free subscribers. If you wish, you can also choose a paid subscription to support this work.

You can also receive the updates on WhatsApp or Telegram.
If you would like to contribute further, you can find the donation links here.