Blasphemy AND Misrepresentation: Narayana Maharaja’s Holland Lecture

Vielen Dank für diesen Beitrag, Jahnava devi – Grüße an Rocana Prabhu!

Blasphemy AND Misrepresentation:
Narayana Maharaja’s Holland Lecture

BY: JAHNAVA DEVI

Jan 05, CANADA (SUN) — A further deconstruction of the B.V. Narayana “blasphemy video”.

In January 2008 a video appeared on YouTube, posted by ‘Barkingdog18’, which alleged that Narayana Maharaja had made blasphemous statements against Srila Prabhupada. On June 26, 2008, the Sun published an article by Parasuram das entitled, “A Letter to My Friends“, in which he offered his analysis of B.V. Narayana Maharaja. Included among his key points were the following:

* That in an effort to promote his own convictions, Narayana Maharaja has, at first inadvertently, and more recently quite openly, minimised the position of Srila Prabhupada.

* That in his preaching, and as a direct result of the above, Narayana Maharaja has countered several of Srila Prabhupada’s important preaching points and criticised several of his decisions.

* That Narayana Maharaja has gone from being a spiritual supporter and friend of ISKCON some years ago, with an avowed intention not to initiate anyone affiliated with ISKCON, to a stage where he is openly declaring his animosity to his close followers, and in his bid to become the successor to Srila Prabhupada, indiscriminately offering initiation to even new congregational members whom he hardly knows. This he does without any consultation with any ISKCON authority.

“A Letter to My Friends” generated a great deal of response lambasting the author, and supporting B.V. Narayana. One of the submissions we received was from Avadhuta Maharaja, who sent us a link for a video similar to the ‘Barkingdog’ video, along with what was characterized as a transcript of the video. A quick look at the document confirmed that the “transcript” was really not a true transcript of the content of either video. Consequently, we did not publish it, nor did we spend further time reading it. Instead, we asked for an accurate representation of the video content.

On July 30, 2008, Sun staff wrote an editorial entitled “Inconclusive Rebuttal“, in which we provided a detailed summary of the various rebuttals to Parasurama we had received, our requests to B.V. Narayana’s supporters for additional proof of their position, and the fact that such material was not forthcoming. In fairness, if we had carefully read the Rebuttal document at that time, we would have understood that it represented the evidence we were asking for. And, we might have written this analysis much sooner.

More recently, on December 22nd, Parasurama das submitted a follow-up article, “The Evidence is Here and the Case is Closed!“, which has re-started the endless loop of rebuttals coming from the Narayana camp.

We hope that at least some of our readers will understand why we have chosen not to publish the many insulting and angry letters and so-called “rebuttal” articles the Sun has received from B.V. Narayana’s supporters on this matter. Here is one such letter, recently written by Isa das (ACBSP), who has become an avid follower of Narayana Maharaja. He writes:

Dear Prabhus;

The dogs at Sampradaya sun and Parasurama das should be beat! That may save them from the extreme hell they will enter for the continued offenses they are making to Srila Prabhupada and Srila Narayan Maharaja.

It is clear that they have never listened to a full class nor read a complete book of Srila BV Narayan Maharaja’s. And if they have then it is clear that their intelligence has been lost and their is no hope for them.

I as well as 1000’s of Srila Prabhupada’s followers and disciples have and we find that Srila Narayan Maharaja is 1000% inline with our sampradaya and Srila Prabhupada. If one has at least a drop of bhakti watching the below movie will clearly show the love Srila Narayan Maharaja has for Srila Prabhupada.

[links to Narayana propaganda deleted]

your servant

Isa das

While Isa das enthusiastically calls for Parasurama and the Sun dogs to be beaten lest we go to some extreme hell, we note that he joins his associates in not being able (or willing) to provide a simple, true, unedited copy of the original video transcript of Narayana’s Holland lecture. Instead, he provided links to more ‘feel good’ Narayana videos that he believes will convince the devotees that Narayana loves Srila Prabhupada, and should not be questioned. Needless to say, we don’t take his approach seriously.

Given the fact that Isa das is a pioneer of the ‘Poison Movement’, and has spent untold hours pouring over audio tape whispers and transcripts of room conversations, we trust that he will appreciate our efforts to similarly deconstruct the tangle of fact and fiction surrounding the Narayana Maharaja Blasphemy video.

Our biggest motivation for conducting this very long and tedious review was to put down, for the record, a conclusive statement on the blasphemy debate. Second to that, we are always troubled when we feel the need to reject submissions to the Sun, particularly on issues like this one, which create so much disharmony amongst the devotees. We felt it necessary to provide a justification for doing so.

As we tried to understand for ourselves what the Blasphemy video dispute was all about, we found that it required quite an in-depth study of the video and transcript material. This forensic deconstruction is the work product of that effort. I’m sure there are better methods of approach we could have used, but we don’t know what they are. So… in for a penny, in for a pound.

As our review of the transcripts proceeded, we realized that the Rebuttal document provided by the Narayana camp is a classic study in the tactics that community has become well known for employing in support of their Guru Maharaja.

Deconstructing the Holland Lecture Video

While we somehow doubt that the issue will ever be put to sleep, we offer this attempt at clarifying the video content, the criticisms against what B.V. Narayana is saying, the efforts by his followers to transcribe, purport and explain the content, and the general timeline of events.

We are quite unfamiliar with Narayana Maharaja’s voice and dialect, as we do not listen to his lectures. Nor do we speak Bengali. We know relatively little about comments B.V. Narayana has made in lectures or conversations that immediately preceded or followed the June 15, 2005 lecture in Holland. Our comments specifically relate to the video content in question, the Rebuttal commentary that followed, and our own imperfect understanding of Srila Prabhupada’s transcendental purports. We apologize in advance for any errors or offenses, and invite challenges and corrections.

Basically, the critics of Narayana Maharaja say that in his June 15th Holland lecture, he blasphemed Srila Prabhupada and his books, lied about what is contained in Srila Prabhupada’s purport, and laughed at Srila Prabhupada. The primary evidence is the ‘Barkingdog’ video on YouTube, posted on January 15, 2008, entitled “Narayana Maharaja blasphemes Srila Prabhupada”. [1]

In response to the ‘Barkingdog‘ video, which was causing a stir amongst the devotees, one of Narayana Maharaja’s staunch supporters, Avadhuta Maharaja, posted a second, supposedly true (unedited) copy of the video. Posting as “Miroscepko”, on July 20, 2008 he published this version on Youtube, entitled ” Holland Lecture 15th June 2005“.

One of the main complaints against the ‘Barkingdog’ video was that it had been edited to produce a false picture of what Narayana Maharaja said. As you will see in the comparative transcripts to follow, the ‘Barkingdog’ video is 7:23 in length, compared to the ‘Miroscepko’ video, which is 10:00 in length. There are :09 seconds of content pasted in at the start of the ‘Barkingdog’ video, prior to the point where the ‘Miroscepko’ video begins. The ‘Miroscepko’ video runs 2:46 longer.

But as the reader will see, the ‘Barkingdog’ cut-and-paste argument is really not the crux of the matter at all. The truth of the video-taped lecture is there to be heard on both copies of the video, and without question, sinister editing did not play a role in the matter.

Side-by-side Comparison of Transcripts

In the first section of video content, the transcripts of the ‘Barkingdog’ video and the ‘Miroscepko’ video are identical, except for the opening :09 seconds of ‘Barkingdog’. However, a side-by-side comparison of the Rebuttal transcript and the video transcripts (below) show that there are significant differences between the two.

The Rebuttal editors have woven into their transcript a multi-layered commentary of explanation in defense of Narayana Maharaja’s statements. They do so by paraphrasing what was actually stated by Maharaja, adding content from relevant sastra, and referring to dialogue from Narayana Maharaja’s comments on the previous day and on the day following the June 15th Holland lecture. They apparently felt that all this was required in order to provide an adequate and believable explanation. In our deconstruction of the Holland lecture video, however, we find it to be very straightforward, not requiring any of this supplemental information in order to understand the message that Narayana was conveying.

For the sake of brevity, we have not included in the main body of our analysis the complete contents of the Rebuttal paper, but you can read it here, in its entirety.

Following is a side-by-side comparison of the opening content in the two videos. Aside from the pasted-in :09 seconds of content added to the ‘Barkingdog’ video, the two are identical.

‘Barkingdog’ Video [7:23]

[:0] “Before this, prior to this I want to tell something about [reaches to the side for notes and talks with devotee(s), unintelligible… gets papers in hand…]

[:10] [there’s a break in the film]

[:13] …that when they read Srimad Bhagavat, especially the purport of Swamiji…

[:24] then they’ll

[:27] …hmm…or… they lose their faith to Krsna Consciousness because everywhere it had been told in his purport, ladies are inferior, blacks are all sudra, and they should not be given bhakti, they cannot have bhakti, and so many things.

[:53] What?

[Several voices from the audience are heard commenting:]

A female voice(s): “It doesn’t say that”…
(louder) “It doesn’t say that.”
A male Indian voice: “That’s what they say”

[Other unintelligible comments from audience]

[:57] And so many, they were in ISKCON, they left [hand gesture of dispersing] … really for this.

[1:06] So, I want to tell … ah …

[1:16] that in Bhagavad-gita… verse (?) … “mam… (NM hands the paper over to a devotee to read) [1:22]

”Miroscepko’ Video [10:00]

[:0] read Srimad Bhagavat, especially the purport of Swamiji.

then they’ll

…hmm…or… they lose their faith to Krsna Consciousness because everywhere it had been told in his purport, ladies are inferior, blacks are all sudra, and they should not be given bhakti, they cannot have bhakti, and so many things.

What?

[Several voices from the audience are heard commenting:]

A female voice(s): “It doesn’t say that”…
(louder) “It doesn’t say that.”
A male Indian voice: “That’s what they say”

[Other unintelligible comments from audience]

And so many, they were in ISKCON, they left [hand gesture of dispersing] … really for this.

So, I want to tell … ah …

that in Bhagavad-gita… verse (?) … “mam… (NM hands the paper over to a devotee to read)

Let us now compare the video transcript to the Rebuttal transcript offered by Syamarani (Jadurani) devi dasi, in defense of Narayana Maharaja. Her transcript, dated June 6, 2008, was submitted to the Sun for publication on July 22, 2008 by Avadhuta Maharaja. In fact, this transcription and commentary (referred to as “the Rebuttal”) were not the sole work of Syamarani devi. As noted at the close of the document, a whole team of devotees worked on this apologia:

Editorial Advisors: Svami B.V. Madhava, Brajanatha dasa, Sri Prema Prayojana
Editor: Syamarani dasi
Contributing Editors: Hariballabha dasi and Ratna dasi
Transcribers: Krsna-Vallabha dasi and Janaki dasi
Typist: Janaki dasi
Proofreader: Krsna Kamini dasi

The Rebuttal begins with an explanation of why the B.V. Narayana camp felt the need to offer a defense against the ‘Barkingdog’ video, and they explain their document’s formatting:

“Friday, 06 June 2008

[Respected Readers,
Please accept our humble obeisances. All glories to Sri Guru and Gauranga. A video is currently listed on www.Google.com, which is called “Narayana Maharaja Blasphemes Srila Prabhupada.” “The video was posted on youtube. As soon as an innocent person types “Narayana Maharaja videos” on the Google search bar, this video comes up as #2 on the list.”

The name of the person who posted this video is unknown to us, but he identifies himself on Google as Barkingdog18. In order to try to establish his conception, Barkingdog18 has cut and edited out various parts of the lecture.

In actuality, Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja was glorifying Srila Prabhupada and defending his integrity as a pure Guru in our disciplic succession. Some people had been criticizing Prabhupada’s books, saying that they are against women. Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja establishes in his discourse that this is not true.

The following is a transcription of the actual lecture, edited for clarity under Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja’s guidance. This harikatha lecture is color-coded for ease of understanding. The pink text shows the crucial words that were cut from the beginningBarkingdog18’s video. The red text shows our explanations. The blue text shows Srila Narayana Maharaja’s similar statements on the day before and the day after.”

Following is the first portion of the Rebuttal text, which matches the side-by-side transcript of the opening sections of the “Barkingdog’ and ‘Miroscepko’ videos, above:

“[Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja:] Some devotees have told me that when they read Srimad-Bhagavatam, and especially the purports of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, they lose their faith in Krsna-consciousness because his purports state that ladies are inferior; and that black people are all sudras, they should not be given bhakti, they cannot have bhakti, and so many things like that. So many people who were in ISKCON left because of this.

[Madhava Maharaja:] Gurudeva is not saying this. They are saying this.

[Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja:] In this regard, I want to tell you all that in the Bhagavad-gita it is written:

[At this time Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja called on Padmanabha Maharaja to read the translation as given in the 1972 edition of our Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is. He began to read from a paper that had been given to Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja earlier, which contained certain verses and purports of Srila Prabhupada that some devotees had doubts about.]”

Please keep in mind this reference to the 1972 edition, which is not mentioned in the video dialogue itself. We will comment further on the issue of Gita publication dates later in our presentation. We will not comment here on every small discrepancy between the video transcript and the Rebuttal, which the readers can see for themselves by comparing the two columns. Please note the addition of bold text in the comparative tables, intended to help the reader sync the dialogue between the two transcripts.

Here is a side-by-side comparison of our transcription of the ‘Barkingdog’ video, compared to the way it is presented in the Rebuttal, for this initial portion of video content:

‘Barkingdog’ Video

[Narayana Maharaja:]
” …that when they read Srimad Bhagavat, especially the purport of Swamiji…

then they’ll

…hmm…or… they lose their faith to Krsna Consciousness because everywhere it had been told in his purport, ladies are inferior, blacks are all sudra, and they should not be given bhakti, they cannot have bhakti, and so many things.

What?

[Several voices from the audience are heard commenting:]

A female voice(s): “It doesn’t say that”…
(louder) “It doesn’t say that.”
A male Indian voice: “That’s what they say”

[Other unintelligible comments from audience ]

[Narayana Maharaja:] And so many, they were in ISKCON, they left [hand gesture of dispersing] … really for this.

So, I want to tell … ah …

that in Bhagavad-gita… verse (?) … “mam… (NM hands the paper over to a devotee to read)

Rebuttal Transcript

[Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja:] Some devotees have told me that when they read Srimad- Bhagavatam, and especially the purports of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, they lose their faith in Krsna-consciousness because his purports state that ladies are inferior; and that black people are all sudras, they should not be given bhakti, they cannot have bhakti, and so many things like that. So many people who were in ISKCON left because of this.

[Madhava Maharaja:] Gurudeva is not saying this. They are saying this.

[Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja:] In this regard, I want to tell you all that in the Bhagavad-gita it is written:

Not one, but ten of B.V. Narayana’s supporters made a joint effort to study the ‘Barkingdog’ video tape, compare it to the original video, transcribe the original, study the nuances, and offer commentary on the transcript so as to explain how it is that Narayana Maharaja is actually supporting Srila Prabhupada, and not blaspheming him. Given all that, and given the significant differences between the actual video transcript and the way it is presented in the Rebuttal, it’s obvious that this is a carefully crafted, sanitized spin-job. As described in the preface to the Rebuttal:

“The following is a transcription of the actual lecture, edited for clarity under Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja’s guidance.”

Of course, “edited for clarity” is rather subjective. In this case, it seems that the editors were equating “clarity” with “spin”. Aside from the places where there can be a reasonable question about what Maharaja has said due to his accent, recording volume levels, or background noise, the text presented in the Rebuttal is so different from the original video that it can’t even be characterized as a “transcript”. It is simply a paraphrasing, or re-statement. Given the serious nature of this dispute, which is all about the precision of language and intent, we find it rather pointless for the Rebuttal editors to have come up with a document like this one. We would be much better served by a precise transcription, accompanied by whatever commentary they saw fit to give. But simply re-doing Narayana Maharaja’s words to suit them does not add any credibility to their position. In fact, we found their Rebuttal presentation so contrived that when it was first submitted to the Sun, we declined to publish it. Instead, we asked the parties to produce a true copy and transcription, which they never did.

Before we get to the central evidence of blasphemy, let’s first look at several interesting points of comparison that indicate the intention to spin this Rebuttal. Given that Narayana Maharaja personally ‘edited this for clarity’, we must assume that the spin has his blessing.

1. The Rebuttal text in pink denotes “crucial words” omitted from the ‘Barkingdog’ video:

“[Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja:] Some devotees have told me that when they read Srimad-Bhagavatam, and especially the purports of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, they lose their faith in Krsna-consciousness…”

We find it interesting that these are considered “crucial words”. This phrase is basically a ‘responsibility footprint’, i.e., it indicates a catalyst for Narayana Maharaja’s choosing to address this issue at all. It wasn’t his concern being addressed, but the concerns of others. But in the context of the dispute over the authenticity of the ‘Barkingdog’ video, are these words really so crucial? After all, the phrase “that when they read” indicates on its own weight that there are other parties involved… others who are reading and losing faith. So we don’t see the elimination of these words as being indicative of a plot by ‘Barkingdog’ to demonize Narayana Maharaja’s words.

2. The Rebuttal states, “… and especially the purports of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja…”

In fact, the video transcript shows that what Maharaja really said was: “…especially the purport of Swamiji…” In the Rebuttal, the editors found it necessary to add three words of honorifics: “Srila”, “Bhaktivedanta”, and “Maharaja”. But in fact, Narayana had used only a single, not so respectful word, calling him simply “Swamiji”. This practice of casually, improperly addressing the maha-bhagavata Sampradaya Acarya, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, by calling him “Swamiji” has often generated criticism of Narayana Maharaja. It’s no surprise that we find this particular spin in the Rebuttal, but the honorifics certainly weren’t added out of a necessity to “edit for clarity”. Just the opposite.

3. The Rebuttal states, “…they lose their faith in Krsna-consciousness because his purports state that ladies are inferior;”

In fact, the video transcript shows that what Narayana Maharaja said was: “…they lose their faith to Krsna Consciousness because everywhere it had been told in his purport, ladies are inferior”. The word “everywhere” was dropped in the Rebuttal version. When Narayana Maharaja said that “because everywhere it had been told”, he indicates that this was a statement Srila Prabhupada made repetitively, everywhere. In fact, when you listen to the video, you hear that Maharaja puts some emphasis on the word “everywhere”. Uninformed listeners who hear this word “everywhere” might well get a different understanding of how Narayana is characterizing Srila Prabhupada’s purports, then if the word “everywhere” were omitted. So it’s interesting that “everywhere” has been scrubbed from the Rebuttal.

4. The Rebuttal states, “…and that black people are all sudras”

In fact, the video transcript shows that what Maharaja said was: “blacks are all sudra”. “Black people” is a nice addition for personalism and political correctness, but it has nothing to do with “editing for clarity”.

5. The Rebuttal states, “…and so many things like that.”

In fact, the video transcript shows that what was said was: “and so many things.” Not “things like that”. Just “things”. The spin goes to broadness vs. singularity. As it was originally stated, B.V. Narayana was pointing to “so many things” Srila Prabhupada had written that were problematic. But in the Rebuttal he is more specific… it’s just problematic things “like that”.

6. The Rebuttal frames the flow of conversation in what is perhaps a more easy-to-read manner, dropping Madhava Maharaja’s comment further down in the dialogue than it really occurred. We can understand that this was done for clarity.

The Rebuttal states, “So many people who were in ISKCON left because of this.”

In the video, however, we hear “And so many, they were in ISKCON, they left [hand gesture of dispersing] … really for this.” What the reader does not get in the Rebuttal transcript, that is available in the video, is Narayana Maharaja’s dismissive hand gesture. They say a picture is worth a thousand words… this picture tells us something of how Maharaja feels about those who left ISKCON, allegedly due to certain comments in Srila Prabhupada’s purports.

7. The Rebuttal indicates that there was only one speaker in dialogue with Narayana Maharaja:

“[Madhava Maharaja:] Gurudeva is not saying this. They are saying this.”

But in fact, there is a whole interesting sequence to be heard in the video at this point. It goes like this:

[Narayana Maharaja:] “…they cannot have bhakti, and so many things. What?…

[Several voices from the audience are heard commenting:]

A female voice(s): “It doesn’t say that”…
(louder) “It doesn’t say that.”

A male Indian voice: “That’s what they say”

[Other unintelligible comments from audience]

[Narayana Maharaja:] “And so many, they were in ISKCON, they left [dismissive hand gesture] … really for this.”

There are several interesting things to point out in this sequence. First, one wonders why it is that the audience members are commenting like this, interrupting Maharaja in the middle of his sentence to say what they think, to offer their own clarification. Throughout this lecture, there is a dizzying array of voices calling out from the audience, talking overtop of and interrupting Narayana Maharaja as he speaks from the vyasasana.

In response to hearing audience members react to his statement, Narayana Maharaja said, “What?” Then many voices were heard (above the general din) commenting. Some may have been clarifying for the record, because they knew this would be a controversial statement, recorded for posterity. Others may have disagreed with what they were hearing. This we cannot know.

In the video, we hear several voices making comments, including what could be one or two women saying the same thing, and one male Indian voice. What we don’t hear, however, is a male voice (Madhava Maharaja) saying: “Gurudeva is not saying this. They are saying this.” We do not know Madhava Maharaja personally, so we can’t recognize his voice, but it would be interesting to know if that was him saying, “That’s what they say”. If so, then we question where in the audio his voice is also heard saying, “Gurudeva is not saying this. They are saying this.” To our ears, that statement is not audible in the video. Either someone has enhanced the audio track of the video enough to hear this line by Madhava Maharaja, or this is simply spin-doctoring.

As for the female voice(s) saying, “It doesn’t say that”… (louder) “It doesn’t say that”, this doesn’t necessarily indicate what the Rebuttal editors would like us to believe, either. We don’t know who the female personality is that made the statement. Was it a Narayana supporter, or a loyal Srila Prabhupada supporter who was challenging Narayana Maharaja?

Amazingly, in just 1:22 seconds of videotape and correspondent Rebuttal transcript, all these issues rise to the surface as we consider what really happened during the infamous Holland lecture.

Let’s pick-up from here with the next section of the video and Rebuttal transcripts. This segment represents the crux of the allegations of blasphemous criticism of Srila Prabhupada on the part of Narayana Maharaja.

‘Barkingdog’ & ‘Miroscepko’ Videos

[Timestamps are from the ‘Barkdingdog’ video]

[1:06] So, I want to tell …ah …

[There is general background talk as arrangements are made for reading the Gita verse.]

[1:49] [Padmanabha Maharaja:] In Bhagavad-gita 9th chapter, 32nd verse, Lord Sri Krsna is telling:

mam hi partha vyapasritya
ye ‘pi syuh papa-yonayah
striyo vaisyas tatha sudras
te ‘pi yanti param gatim

He is telling, “O son of Prtha, Arjuna, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth – women, vaisyas, sudras – they still, they can attain the supreme destination.”

[2:21] [Narayana Maharaja:]
This is wrong! Thank you. [Reaches to take the papers back] Thank you.

Why do we explain it is totally wrong?

[Much audience noise, laughter]

That is right. That is why this…

[2:34] [Man in Audience asks a question (somewhat unintelligible)

[Narayana Maharaja:] Here, mam hi partha vyapasritya … papa-yonayah comma. If we are not papa-yonayah. Sudra also not papa-yoni. Who are papa-yoni? Who are? Kirata, Huna – they are, because they have, they are not Krsna-consciousness. And they eat meat, eggs, wine, smoking, so much drinking, and alcohol and everything. So they are papa-yonayah.

[Man in Audience:] Also they kill dog and eat.

And they drink so much wine and alcohol. They smoke and engage in so many other sinful activities. They are papa-yoni.

[3:20] Here, it is has been told only that in a month, they have monthly some impureness. So it has been told. Not infidelity, not anything.

Rebuttal Transcript

[Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja:] In this regard, I want to tell you all that in the Bhagavad-gita it is written:

[Padmanabha Maharaja:] It is stated in Bhagavad-gita 9th chapter, 32nd verse:

mam hi partha vyapasritya
ye ‘pi syuh papa-yonayah
striyo vaisyas tatha sudras
te ‘pi yanti param gatim

Krsna is telling, “O son of Prtha, Arjuna, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth – women, vaisyas (merchants) and sudras (workers) – still, they can attain the supreme destination.” (Bhagavad Gita 9.32)

[Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja:] This is wrong. What you have explained is totally wrong. This is why they are confused and have doubts.

[Madhava Maharaja:] Over-editing. Over-editing by the disciples.

Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja:] Mam hi partha vyapasrtya. after the word ‘papa-yoniya’ (sinful species) there should be a comma,

Stri, women, are not papa-yoni. Sudras are also not papa-yoni. Who are papa-yoni? Srimad-Bhagavatam explains this:

kirata-hunandhra-pulinda-pulkasa
abhira-sumbha yavanah khasadayah
ye ‘nye ca papa yad-apasrayasrayah
sudhyanti tasmai prabhavisnave namah

“Kirata, Huna, Andhra, Pulinda, Pulkasa, Abhira, Sumbha, Yavana, members of the Khasa races and even others addicted to sinful acts can be purified by taking shelter of the devotees of the Lord, due to His being the supreme power. I beg to offer my respectful obeisances unto Him.” (Srimad Bhagavatam 2.4.18)]

Huna, Andra, Kirata – they are papa-yoni, because they have no Krsna-consciousness. They eat meat and eggs, and they drink so much wine and alcohol. They smoke and engage in so many other sinful activities. They are papa-yoni.

For stri (women), it has only been said that they have some monthly impurity. They are not inferior. Papa-yoni does not have the meaning we think it has.

Even before Padmanabha prabhu has finished reciting the sloka translation – on the first syllable of his last word, “destination” – Narayana Maharaja emphatically says, “This is wrong!” When he is interrupted, Padmanabha seems slightly unsure for a moment, perhaps thinking he had read it wrong.

Considering the enthusiasm and timing of Narayana Maharaja’s comment when he jumps in and says “This is wrong!”, it’s obvious that he knew this moment was coming. His reaction was planned. He had the notes in his hand. He knew he was going to be making a particular point. And this fact is the undoing of a good part of the Rebuttal editors’ defense of Narayana’s intentions, as we will show in a moment.

Saying “This is wrong!”, Narayana Maharaja immediately reaches over to Padmanabha to get his papers back. He says “Thank you, Thank you”, then asks, Why do we explain it is totally wrong? There is noise and laughter from the audience. But why are they laughing? Do they think Padmanabha is being chided for reading it wrong? Or do they take delight into Narayana’s forceful challenge to Srila Prabhupada’s purport? Perhaps this is a staged drama the devotees are familiar with at Narayana’s lectures.

Then Narayana Maharaja says, “That is right. That is why this…”

The Rebuttal editors paraphrase this dialogue: “This is wrong. What you have explained is totally wrong. This is why they are confused and have doubts.”

At this point [2:34 in the footage], a man in the audience asks a question. His words are almost unintelligible, perhaps in Bengali? It almost sounds as if he’s saying, “Well why did Srila Prabhupada give it that way?” While this is speculation, the question would have been a fair one at this point.

Narayana Maharaja begins to explain what he means by “This is wrong”, and the Rebuttal editors put quite a spin on his statements, making a great effort to explain them away. At this point in the Rebuttal transcript, they state:

[Madhava Maharaja:] Over-editing. Over-editing by the disciples.

By “over-editing”, they apparently mean that from this point onward in their defense paper, they will begin weaving in their own conjecture, sastric references, and lecture content from the days before and after this June 13th lecture.

While reciting the Bhagavad-gita sloka, Padmanabha put an emphasis of inflection on the word “though”:

“…though they be of lower birth – women, vaisyas, sudras – they still, they can attain the supreme destination.”

In the Rebuttal, the editors write (red denotes their explanations):

[The inflection in Padmanabha Maharaja’s voice indicated a dash after ‘birth’ and before ‘they’. This dash indicates that women, vaisyas, and sudras are among the papa-yoni, those of lower birth. Hearing the indication of this punctuation, Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja said:]

[Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja:] This is wrong. What you have explained is totally wrong. This is why they are confused and have doubts.

Let us consider several points:

First, it’s not clear why Padmanabha put an emphasis on “though”. We see nothing in the sloka or translated text to indicate the need for emphasis on this word. Second, we hear no inflection in his voice that is specific to the hyphens, as the editors suggest. Third, when Narayana Maharaja says “This is wrong!”, he is not chastising Padmanabha for reading with a wrong inflection. Neither his emphasis on “though” or his inflection in reading the words between the hyphens were being fault-finded. Clearly, Maharaja was finding fault with Srila Prabhupada’s purport, stating that “papa-yonayah” is being used to refer to those of lower birth – women, vaisyas, sudras.

Earlier we mentioned that the speed of Narayana Maharaja’s exclamation would be a good part of the undoing of this defense. As we see in their red comment above, the Rebuttal editors state that what Narayana Maharaja was challenging is Padmanabha’s method of reading, which supposedly indicated a certain punctuation. But this is nonsense.

Narayana Maharaja immediately jumped at the opportunity to say, “This is wrong!” He had the papers in hand, he had set-up the moment, and he knew that he was going to make this point before the words or inflections ever left Padmanabha’s mouth. So it’s not true that Narayana was responding to Padmanabha’s inflection.

Narayana Maharaja said “This is wrong. What you have explained is totally wrong. This is why they are confused and have doubts.” Obviously, he can’t possibly mean that all sorts of devotees have gotten doubts and left ISKCON because Padmanabha’s inflection – spoken at that very moment – was wrong.

The Rebuttal editors suggest that the whole confusing issue here – the root of the wrongful allegation of blasphemy – hinges on a matter of punctuation and inflection. By way of further explanation they state (blue indicates similar statements Narayana Maharaja made on the days before and after this lecture):

“[On the next day, July 14, Srila Narayana Maharaja explained further why he said the 1972 edition of our Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is was misedited. He said: “I want to explain something regarding my class yesterday. In the Bhagavad-gita, Sri Krsna made a statement about women: ‘mam hi partha vyapasritya…’ What is the meaning? Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja has written: ‘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.’ [Translation taken from the 1968 edition of Bhagavad-gita]This is a very good translation. Everything is clear. This is the first edition, and it is clear here. Then, in the next edition [1972], the translation was changed to become “Not As It Is.”

Because the editors had no realization, they were bound to change the punctuation and wording to make it look like all women are of a low, sinful birth, less intelligent, and so on. You should know the truth. If you want to know, you can read his original books. “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.” This is very clear. This is the original.”‘

Now if we are to accept this explanation as true, we would have to believe that the following is also true: that Narayana Maharaja arranged the set-up (with papers in hand) so he could make this very point, and as soon as the words were out of Padmanabha’s mouth, he said “This is wrong!” Narayana Maharaja had arranged to have Padmanabha read from the 1972 edition of the Gita, just so he could make this point. Yet after the proclamation that This is wrong!”, he neglected to mention that the whole point of the exercise was to illustrate a BBT editing problem between the 1968 edition of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, and the 1972 edition. This, we are told, is the reason countless numbers of devotees have lost faith and left ISKCON – this error in translation and punctuation. Yet Narayana Maharaja completely fails to mention it at all during his June 15th lecture.

Aside from that, it’s hard to imagine why – if this was admittedly a staged event to make the point about edited versions of the Gita – the Rebuttal editors would have gone into the whole excuse about Padmanabha’s voice inflection on the hyphens, and the comma. So this doesn’t make any sense.

Here’s a scenario that seems far more likely: Narayana’s “That is wrong!” statement resulted in some push-back from members of the audience who didn’t like what they were hearing, and suspected the comment to be just what it was – a blasphemous criticism against Srila Prabhupada. They put on pressure, asked for clarification, and those close to Narayana Maharaja flew into action doing damage control. (Either that, or the damage control team was on high alert, and instinctively knew they better clean up this toxic spill, which had been duly recorded on video.) Consequently, the next day Maharaja announced, “I want to explain something regarding my class yesterday.” Now that is a scenario that makes some sense.

But we are not left to simply speculate on these scenarios in order to understand what’s really going on here. There is further evidence to consider, by way of the alternate versions of Bhagavad-gita. First, we recall the Rebuttal statement:

“At this time Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja called on Padmanabha Maharaja to read the translation as given in the 1972 edition of our Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita As It Is.”

What Padmanabha Maharaja recited was the following:

“He is telling, “O son of Prtha, Arjuna, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth – women, vaisyas, sudras – they still, they can attain the supreme destination.”

In his later explanatory comments, the day after this lecture, Narayana Maharaja offered the following comments:

‘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.’ [Translation taken from the 1968 edition of Bhagavad-gita] This is a very good translation.

So in his follow-up comments, Narayana Maharaja is stating that what is so wrong about Srila Prabhupada’s purport to Gita 9:32 was not some fault of his, as the author of the purports, but rather is the fault of the BBT editors who changed the original 1968 purport when they printed the 1972 edition. This is the core defense being offered against the allegations of blaspheming Srila Prabhupada.

Aside from all the subtle nuances of intonation, inflection, hyphens and commas, here are the fundamental statements made in both versions of the Gita 9:32 commentary.

The 1968 version states: “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.”

The 1972 version states: “O son of Prtha, Arjuna, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth – women, vaisyas, sudras – they still, they can attain the supreme destination.”

We are to understand that based solely on the difference in wording between these statements, that so many have lost faith and left ISKCON. The difference between the two is that the hyphen in the 1972 version indicates that women, vaisyas, and sudras are of lower birth. In the 1968 version, it says whether a woman, a merchant, OR low-born. [And this is about a hyphen, not a comma. The only place a comma comes into play is in the separation of the synonyms.]

So we can accept that there is a substantive difference between these two phrases due to the hyphen.

But we have further evidence of the problem Narayana Maharaja has with Srila Prabhupada’s purport. Narayana Maharaja prefaced his explanation with the statement, “Why do we explain it is totally wrong?” Then he went into the following detailed example of papa- yonayah:

“Here, mam hi partha vyapasritya … papa-yonayah comma. If we are not papa-yonayah. Sudra also not papa-yoni. Who are papa-yoni? Who are? Kirata, Huna – they are, because they have, they are not Krsna-consciousness. And they eat meat, eggs, wine, smoking, so much drinking, and alcohol and everything. So they are papa-yonayah.

And they drink so much wine and alcohol. They smoke and engage in so many other sinful activities. They are papa-yoni.

Here, it is has been told only that in a month, they have monthly some impureness. So it has been told. Not infidelity, not anything.”

So he is emphasizing the distinction between papa-yonayah (low-born, i.e. debauchers) and the classes of women and sudras. He does not offer a clear distinction here between the low-born and the debauchers, although that distinction certainly exists (i.e., not all who are low-born are themselves debauchers).

Maharaja specified “papa-yonayah comma”. And it appears that later, when his supporters were fishing around for something they could hang their hat on in defense of Narayana’s criticism of Srila Prabhupada’s purports, they grabbed onto the “comma”. That’s it! That’s the reason for the emphatic statement: “That is wrong!” It’s a case of bad punctuation… BBT editing… poor inflection. It’s nothing to do with Srila Prabhupada’s general mention of women and sudras in this particular context.

In the complete version of the Rebuttal, the reader will find a further clarification on this point, offered by Narayana Maharaja on the ‘day after’:

“Those who are doubting quote this (purport of Cc Madhya-lila 8.36): “The word papa-yonayah means ‘born into a lower class’. According to the Vedic system of classification, women, vaisyas and sudras belong to a lower social order.” I don’t agree that Srila Swami Maharaja personally wrote this about woman being papa-yoni, and this has never been written in any scripture.”

So what does this statement of Narayana’s mean? “I don’t agree that Srila Swami Maharaja personally wrote this about woman being papa-yoni, and this has never been written in any scripture.” So obviously, this is not just a matter of a comma/hyphen.

“[Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja:] Some devotees have told me that when they read Srimad-Bhagavatam, and especially the purports of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, they lose their faith in Krsna-consciousness because his purports state that ladies are inferior; and that black people are all sudras, they should not be given bhakti, they cannot have bhakti, and so many things like that. So many people who were in ISKCON left because of this.

The problem is Srila Prabhupada’s purports… “and especially the purports of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja, they lose their faith”. Not just a hyphen, but “so many things like that.” And THIS is the blasphemous criticism being referred to by Narayana Maharaja’s detractors.

In reality, the real issue for those whose faith is challenged is not where the hyphen is – it’s the fact that women (or sudras) are mentioned at all in this context … that “EVEN THEY” can attain Krsna. The big issue is not whether women are included in the class of low-born, or whether women are low-born and debauchers, or just low-born (or just debauchers). This is word jugglery. The problem is a perception of language that indicates “less than” rather than “equal to”. So for all the efforts made by Narayana Maharaja and his editing team, we can see that Maharaja’s fundamental problem is with a philosophical point Srila Prabhupada is making. The efforts to put a cosmetic shine on the reason for his dissatisfaction is what’s behind all the complexity here.

From this point on in the Rebuttal, they offer various comments from Narayana Maharaja made on the day before and the day after his lecture, and they refer to numerous sastric references which speak to the philosophical point that one cannot be rejected on the basis of bodily designation or birth. Of course, none of this has anything to do with explaining away the BBT’s supposedly faulty punctuation, nor does it speak to Srila Prabhupada’s intent in his purport to Madhya-lila 8.36. It’s basically just spin.

Then they bring it back around to suggesting that the ‘Barkingdog’ video was spliced and diced to create a false impression of blasphemous criticism that does not exist. (Pink text in the Rebuttal shows the “crucial words” that were cut from the beginning of Barkingdog’s video.)

“In Srimad Bhagavatam, 1.9.48, in the original verse itself and purport, nothing like this has been written – that ladies are less-intelligent, or that they cannot perform bhajana, or that they are lusty [from this points, the Barkingdog18 video cuts out some sentences and leaves in some sentences. What you are reading is the full transcription:] and men are not so. Men are also lusty. Moreover, it is the soul who comes in a male-form or women-form; so all are equal.”

We’re a bit confused as to the Srimad Bhagavatam, 1.9.48 reference, which Narayana Maharaja mentions in his lecture. This citation doesn’t appear in the Caitanya-caritamrta Madhya-lila 8.36, nor does it appear in Bhagavad-gita 9.32. More likely, he (and the editors) meant to refer to Srimad Bhagavatam 2.4.18, which is mentioned in Gita 9.32. Assuming that’s the case, if we compare Srila Prabhupada’s purport on Srimad Bhagavatam, 2.4.18 to Bhagavad-gita 9.32, we again see the crux of Narayana Maharaja’s problem with Srila Prabhupada purports. It has nothing to do with punctuation – it is the fundamental issue of Srila Prabhupada’s reference to women in such a context.

Following is a side-by-side comparison of this portion of the video transcript and the Rebuttal text:

‘Barkingdog’ & ‘Miroscepko’ Videos

[Timestamp is from the ‘Barkdingdog’ video]

[3:20] Here, it is has been told only that in a month, they have monthly some impureness. So it has been told. Not infidelity, not anything.

[3:33] And also in Srimad Bhagavatam, here they have told like him (points to Padmanabha): papa-yonayah means born into lower class (unintelligible) that we are thinking. Then lower class, who are Narada? In what (unintelligible)? Dasi-putra, so, he was low class? Vyasa also, Narada also, Prahlad also, Vidura also, Vidura (unintelligible).

[There is a moment of exchange with the audience, as comments are given, prompting more examples.]

So according to the Vedic system of classification, womans, vaisya, sudra belong to a lower social. Never. I don’t take. Anywhere it tell it (unintelligible), never, never.

So, In Srimad Bhagavatam, I wrote this is sloka 1.9.48, in main sloka, original sloka, nothing like written like this (snaps paper). Never. Like ladies have some less intelligence, or they cannot do bhajan, they are lusty. All false things. Never written. Men

[‘Barkingdog’ video abruptly cut-off] [5:00]

The missing content is found in the ‘Miroscepko’ video, from [4:46] through [5:46] :

Men also lusty. And if their soul coming in male-form or woman, their soul, so equal like that. Just so. I know that all the Rsis of Dandakaranya they were male. Hm? And they prayed Ramacandra that, “We want to be like gopis.” And by his mercy, very soon they were siddha and they went to Vraja. And they had the form of gopi, from the womb of gopi. Were they less intelligent? (unintelligible). So we should not think like that.

In some cases he has written that there are some specialty of womans and some specialty of male. And according to that, somewhere, something he had written, ah, he has explained. And Srimad Bhagavat also, it has been proved. So we shouldn’t think that ladies cannot do bhakti, they are less intelligent, or they’re inferior. We shouldn’t. [6:18]

[The underlined text above is what’s been snipped out of the ‘Barkingdog’ video. Beginning at [5:01] up to [5:35] , the ‘Barkingdog’ video text is identical to the ‘Miroscepko’ video text (last paragraph in bold black above) ]

Rebuttal Transcript

For stri (women), it has only been said that they have some monthly impurity. They are not inferior. Papa-yoni does not have the meaning we think it has.

Who is Sri Narada Rsi? In what class was he born? Narada was a dasi-putra, the son of a maidservant. Was he low class? Srila Vyasadeva was also (born from the womb of a sudra mother), Prahlada (was the son of an atheistic demon), and Vidura (was also born of a sudra mother), and there are so many others like them. Should we reject them?

In Srimad Bhagavatam, 1.9.48, in the original verse itself and purport, nothing like this has been written – that ladies are less-intelligent, or that they cannot perform bhajana, or that they are lusty [from this points, the Barkingdog18 video cuts out some sentences and leaves in some sentences. What you are reading is the full transcription:] and men are not so. Men are also lusty. Moreover, it is the soul who comes in a male-form or women-form; so all are equal.

All the Rsis of Dandakaranya were male. They prayed to Lord Ramacandra, “We want to be like the gopis.” Then, by Lord Rama’s mercy, they very soon became perfectly self-realized (siddha) and went to Vraja. There, taking birth from the wombs of gopis, they attained the forms of gopis. Were they less intelligent? We should not think like that.

In some places Srila Swami Maharaja has written that there is some speciality in women and some speciality in male, and he has explained this. This has also been told in Srimad-Bhagavatam. So we should not think that ladies cannot perform bhakti or that they are less intelligent or inferior.

According to the Rebuttal editors, this section of the video is controversial because ‘Barkingdog’ deleted content in the video. The deleted text is as follows:

“Men also lusty. And if their soul coming in male-form or woman, their soul, so equal like that. Just so. I know that all the Rsis of Dandakaranya they were male. Hm? And they prayed Ramacandra that, “We want to be like gopis.” And by his mercy, very soon they were siddha and they went to Vraja. And they had the form of gopi, from the womb of gopi. Were they less intelligent? (unintelligible). So we should not think like that.”

Obviously there is nothing here of great import in the debate… nothing that ‘Barkingdog’ would have wanted to hide. Narayana Maharaja is simply offering here further examples of instances where the philosophy explains that individuals (pure devotees) cannot be broad-brushed according to bodily conception. What is much more interesting in this section is Narayana Maharaja’s comment:

“And also in Srimad Bhagavatam, here they have told like him (points to Padmanabha): papa-yonayah means born into lower class (unintelligible) that we are thinking. Then lower class, who are Narada? In what (unintelligible)? Dasi-putra, so, he was low class? Vyasa also, Narada also, Prahlad also, Vidura also, Vidura (unintelligible).”

Again, Narayana Maharaja apparently thinks he is referring to Srimad Bhagavatam 1.9.48, although we suspect he meant S.B. 2.4.18. He is pointing at Padmanabha, who was earlier prompted to read a Bhagavad-gita sloka that Narayana believes to be a faulty BBT-edited version that bewilders devotees into leaving ISKCON.

Narayana Maharaja says, “also in Srimad Bhagavatam, here they have told like him”. “They” apparently refers to the BBT (but of course, Srila Prabhupada is inextricably tied to the BBT in this context). So in the Bhagavatam, the faulty BBT editors have told just like Padmanabha – they have erroneously represented women and others as being born in a lower class, papa-yonayah. He says:

“So according to the Vedic system of classification, womans, vaisya, sudra belong to a lower social. Never. I don’t take. Anywhere it tell it (unintelligible), never, never.

So, In Srimad Bhagavatam, I wrote this is sloka 1.9.48, in main sloka, original sloka, nothing like written like this (snaps paper). Never. Like ladies have some less intelligence, or they cannot do bhajan, they are lusty. All false things. Never written.”

So Narayana Maharaja is making a well-planned point. He declares that a statement in Srila Prabhupada’s purport is “Wrong!”, but of course he can’t outwardly say that Srila Prabhupada himself is wrong (although he obviously thinks so). Instead, he noodles back and forth between two versions of the Gita passage to show that it’s the BBT editors at fault. He then brings in several other references illustrating the same problem, and as we’ll see in the next section, he again lays responsibility on the BBT editors, for numerous – in fact, systemic – editing errors.

We find that what is actually transpiring here is that Narayana Maharaja is, in fact, fault-finding Srila Prabhupada’s purports – not one, but several. While earlier in the lecture and in the Rebuttal there was much to-do about a certain misplaced comma, we now see that the problem goes far beyond that.

“In some cases he has written that there are some specialty of womans and some specialty of male. And according to that, somewhere, something he had written, ah, he has explained. And Srimad Bhagavat also, it has been proved. So we shouldn’t think that ladies cannot do bhakti, they are less intelligent, or they’re inferior.”

Narayana Maharaja makes a number of comments, both here in this lecture and in his follow-up comments the next day, to indicate places where Srila Prabhupada gave bona fide references to the truth about men and women: that they’re specialized, that if they’re Krsna conscious their bodily designation and birth are meaningless, etc. So in this way he softens the blow, suggesting that the many errors in purports are the fault of the BBT, as evidenced by the fact that Srila Prabhupada ‘got it right’ in other places.

For the sake of brevity, we won’t comment further on the material contained in several additional pages found in the Rebuttal document, but will leave the reader with one last reference. (The red text indicates the Rebuttal editors’ explanations, while the black is a paraphrasing of Narayana Maharaja’s words).

The editors take another opportunity to suggest that ‘Barkingdog’ simply misunderstood praise and support for Srila Prabhupada, thinking it to be blasphemous fault-finding. Given all the evidence we have attempted to put forth in this paper, we hope the reader will recognize the following passage for what it is – a manipulative paraphrasing meant to distract from the actual criticisms Narayana has made of Srila Prabhupada’s purports:

“Some devotees also quote this statement in his purport: I have read everything. “It may be clearly said that the understanding of a woman is always inferior to the understanding of a man.” I do not agree with this statement, and Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja could never have written it. [Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja said here, “He cannot write this.” Barkingdog18, not understanding Srila Maharaja’s intention, capitalized on the fact that English is not Srila Maharaja’s first language. By the very title of his cut and spliced video, he encourages the unaware viewer to think that Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja is criticizing Prabhupada. The viewer tends to think Srila Maharaja is saying that Prabhupada is “not allowed to say this.” His meaning is actually “I know that Prabhupada is a self-realized soul and a bona-fide guru in the disciplic line from Sri Krsna Himself. He could not have possibly said this.”] You should try to reconcile this with what he has actually said. Don’t be worried about this. Whatever is actually written in sastra is okay.

[Barkingdog18’s video ended here. Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja’s wonderful lecture defending Srila Prabhupada’s integrity, and imploring devotees to understand Prabhupada’s glory properly, continues as follows:]”

The BBT editors have undoubtedly made errors – some of them grievous- in their aggressive campaign of re-editing Srila Prabhupada’s books. In fact, just researching the Bhagavad-gita slokas for this article has been heartbreaking, there are so many different versions floating around. This whole debate should serve as a lesson to the BBT on the serious ramifications of changing the pure devotee’s words. It sets a disastrous precedent. But all that aside, it is clear that Narayana Maharaja is actually fault-finding the words of the pure devotee, because he does not understand or accept them.

Srila Prabhupada is a Sampradaya Acarya, not a ‘small a’ acarya who is simply commenting on sastra. Srila Prabhupada is transmiting the pure message of Lord Krsna and the previous Acaryas, without change. While certain things that Sri Krsna spoke in Bhagavad-gita according to time, place and circumstance may bewilder some of us who are trying to understand it today, Srila Prabhupada in his purports has represented the Pure, Absolute, Unchanged instructions of the previous Sampradaya Acaryas. If there are characterizations made in his purports that Narayana Maharaja does not understand or cannot accept, then he should simply say so, forthrightly, instead of dodging around, trying to assert his criticism in the guise of a complaint about the BBT editors.

Narayana Maharaja rejects Srila Prabhupada’s references to women being of a lower class. Yet taken in the broad context, Srila Prabhupada’s statements about women are very clear, and they are not at all derogatory. Furthermore, we can take Srila Prabhupada’s instructions ‘straight’. We don’t have to say well, let me first see what he had to say the day before, and let me wait to see what he’ll have to say the day after, before I can understand what he is saying today.

In conclusion, this entire discussion appears to have been staged for the express purpose of putting questions in the minds of the devotees as to the absoluteness of Srila Prabhupada’s purports. And as we can see from this Q&A, appended to the Rebuttal document, Narayana Maharaja hits his target.

[Question:] Gurudeva, the other night you were speaking about the wrong editing of our Srila Prabhupada’s books. Having heard your class, some devotees may become afraid to read his books now, doubting all his published books. They may be wondering if they are really reading the words of Srila Prabhupada, or someone else’s words. Can you say something about that?

[Srila Narayana Gosvami Maharaja:] They should carefully read the books of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja. They should read all his books. Generally there will be no doubt, but where there is some doubt, they should see his original writing. So many changes by the editors have been made in Srimad-Bhagavatam also.

The Rebuttal paper indicates that this Q&A session took place in Amsterdam on July 15, 2005 at the airport. The questioner refers to Narayana Maharaja having discussed wrong editing “the other night”. The lecture being discussed in this paper took place on June 15th – a full month prior. So either the Q&A date is wrong, or Narayana Maharaja made his criticism of Srila Prabhupada’s purports a theme during a month-long speaking tour. Either way, such blasphemous fault-finding, done under the guise of an attack on the BBT editors, can be clearly seen for just what it is.

If it were a single comma or a single sentence in a purport that was being questioned, one could easily question the BBT editors as to how and why such an alleged error was made. But in fact, Narayana Maharaja is attacking a whole class of purport statements that he believes are wrong. While the onus is supposedly being put on the BBT, we do not find that approach believable.

Without question, the burden for the tangled debate brought on by ‘Barkingdog’s’ video falls not only on Narayana Maharaja’s shoulders, but also on the shoulders of his editorial team. In their efforts at damage control, they caused even more damage through word jugglery, illogic, and something less than truthfulness. But admittedly, they were working under Maharaja’s direct supervision.

However the weight is carried, it seems very clear that the real intent in this lecture was to plant seeds of doubt in the minds of the devotees, so they will leave Srila Prabhupada’s shelter and become siksa disciples of B.V. Narayana. We have long seen that pattern of activity in Srila Prabhupada’s ISKCON, and the very unfortunate results.

Hare Krsna. Jai, Srila Prabhupada!

FOOTNOTE:

[1] It appears that the original ‘Barking dog’ video was posted on Google videos, under the user name ‘Barkingdog18’, then later posted on YouTube by ‘Barkingdog’. All indications are that this is one and the same person. Certainly, the videos are identical.