Talk:A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeA. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
June 22, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed

Not svarbanik (sonar) he is kayastha and his father name gaur mohan Dey he is kayastha and Swami Shila prabhupada is belonging to kayastha caste he is born in Kulin Kayastha family of Bengal[edit]

Not svarbanik (sonar) he is kayastha and his father name gaur mohan Dey he is kayastha and Swami Shila prabhupada is belonging to kayastha caste he is born in Kulin Kayastha family of Bengal. Yashdeep453 (talk) 02:15, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Provide a WP:Reliable source and it can be changed. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Views on evolution[edit]

Swami Prabhupada's anti-Darwinian views are found here [1] and printed in his book Life Comes from Life [2]. These are primary sources so they are no good for the article but a handful of academic books have picked up on his anti-Darwinian views such as "Asian Religious Responses to Darwinism", page 122 and "Science and Religion Around the World", pages 204-205. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These academic papers may be of use, I will check through them [3], [4] Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks I will look forward to incorporate them. Editorkamran (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another detailed source in the journal Approaching Religion describing Swami Prabhupada opposition to evolution [5]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Name inconsistency[edit]

On the article there is some name inconsistency throughout, either Bhaktivedanta or Prabhupada is being used. I would suggest using only using one. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bhaktivedanta is the correct choice. See this. Changed here for consistency. Editorkamran (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Bhaktivedanta" is not the correct choice, as it's not his name. His name was Swami; Bhaktivedanta and Prabhupada are both honorifics. Calling (Bhaktivedanta) Swami "Bhaktivedanta" is like calling Swami Bon "Bhakti Hriyada" for short, Sridhara "Bhakti Rakshak", Keshava "Bhakti Prajnana", etc. Note also that there are other Bhaktivedantas, most prominently Bhaktivedanta Narayana and his lineage. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Prabhupada is a honorific too, then why did you just revert the last change and reinstall Prabhupada [6]? --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it should be Swami, really, but at least Prabhupada is largely unique to him, whereas literally every Pure Bhakti sannyasi, for example, is called Bhaktivedanta (BV) Something Dāsānudāsa (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I replaced both by Swami. If you have a problem with that, do not revert the whole edit again but talk about the problem here. We are not janitors who do your work for you while you do only vetoes. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Completely unnecessarily hostile tone, but OK. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't the title "swami" an honorific bestowed by a community of religious believers? It seems to me that referring to him repeatedly as swami is akin to referring to Jesus as "the Christ" - not particularly encyclopedic.... PurpleChez (talk) 03:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PurpleChez: Yes "swami" should be removed. It is not used by quality sources.[7][8][9][10] Editorkamran (talk) 05:16, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So what is his name? His actual name, devoid of honorifics? 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
His birth name is "Abhay Charan De". Editorkamran (talk) 09:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. Surely that settles the name inconsistency. All else can he handled within the article provided it is decided what name should be used throughout the article, with removal of all honorific.
The article title should reflect WP:MOSNAME and redirects can handle the remaining variations
The honorifics may be described, certainly. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a bit confusing because Swami is of course a title, but it is also (along with "Goswami") a name used by sannyasis in the line of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati. The man in question's name, without honorifics, is "A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami". Rendered with Swami as a title, it'd be something like "Swami B.V. Swami", which is obviously very confusing and so he avoided doing so.

It's explained in this letter:

So far the title Swami is concerned, although this word is used generally for Sannyasins, this Swami is my particular name as Sannyasi. ... So far the prefix "Swami" is concerned, every sannyasi has got to do that, but two ways Swami (Swami A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami) is not good looking.

Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Dāsānudāsa @Editorkamran @Hob Gadling @Psychologist Guy @PurpleChez,
It is unclear to me how "Swami" was the consensus that was landed on in this discussion. Through my research, I am not entirely convinced that the name Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada can be considered an honorific, but even if "Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabupada", (as @Dāsānudāsa eludes), MOS:HON states that "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English-language reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa."
All four sources that @Editorkamran referenced use the names "Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada, A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, or A.C. Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada" interchangeably. In my own research, I found that "The Hare Krishna Movement: The Post Charismatic Fate of Religious Transplant", published by Columbia University Press, uses several variations of his name, but all include "Bhaktivedanta" (nearly 800 times) to identify him and "Contemporary Hinduism Ritual, Culture, and Practice", published by ABC Clio, also name him as "Bhaktivedanta." So, I'm not understanding how just "Swami" was deemed appropriate for use, when it is clear that atleast "Bhaktivedanta" is most commonly attached to him.
I am open to discussion, so please let me know your thoughts on this discrepancy. RealPharmer3 (talk) 16:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with you that it's absolutely fine to refer to him as Prabhupada, as per the guidelines you linked to above (it's an honorific very much associated with him). But I think others disagree. My main point was that "Swami" in his case is not an honorific, and that it's incorrect to refer to him as "Bhaktivedanta" only. Cheers, Dāsānudāsa (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dāsānudāsa I see you point on why you would be hesitant to refer to him as Bhaktivedanta only. I believe that because his fame and recognition in academic texts and the media is so closely tied to his name - Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, and variations of this name, he should be identified in the article accordingly. Would love to hear others thoughts on this as well! RealPharmer3 (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi back at you!!! PurpleChez (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @PurpleChez,
Can you please explain? RealPharmer3 (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was just wondering if calling him "swami" is encyclopedic - is it like calling Jesus of Nazareth "the Christ"? Or is it more like calling Francis "the pope"? I'm not saying one way or the other... just raising the concern. PurpleChez (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An easy way to solve this, is to always look at the person's own publications. All his books as published under the name A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. So you can just use his last name. Prabhupada is fine. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @PurpleChez,
In my research, I have found that Swami actually doesnt seem to be an honorific like "the Christ" or "The pope", moreover, it is actually referring to an individual that is a renunciant, after taking becoming a sanyasi. When an individual renounces the worldly life, they are given a new name, generally ending with Swami.
Hi @Psychologist Guy, I've done some reading and found Prabhupada is not his last name. In page 22 of A Living Theology of Krishna Bhakti, published by Oxford University Press, the author explains how the subject's name came to be. I believe that it is totally fine to intermix the usage of Prabhupada, A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, Bhaktivedanta Swami.
MOS:HON states that "Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English-language reliable sources without it, it should be included. For example, the honorific may be included for Mother Teresa." I found that "The Hare Krishna Movement: The Post Charismatic Fate of Religious Transplant", published by Columbia University Press, uses several variations of his name, but all include "Bhaktivedanta" (nearly 800 times) to identify him and "Contemporary Hinduism Ritual, Culture, and Practice", published by ABC Clio, also name him as "Bhaktivedanta" - amongst other literature.
It is very clear that his fame, contributions, etc. are tied with the name he upheld as a sanyasi ("A.C Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada"). In the same way Saint Nicholas is referred to as Saint Nicholas in his article, a consistent rule should be followed here. Thus, there should not be an issue for using his name as a renunciant in the article. If you disagree, please let me know why you do and we can discuss! RealPharmer3 (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please see the discussion above re "Swami": in ACBS's case, Swami is his name as a sannyasi (renunciate), so if he used his Swami title he'd be "Swami Swami". I have no objection to including "Bhaktivedanta" or "Prabhupada" (both honorifics), as he is, as per the guideline linked above, commonly associated with those honorifics, but the "Swami" in "Bhaktivedanta Swami" is his name. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, if am understanding you correctly - you agree with my stance (including the name should be fine in his case)? RealPharmer3 (talk) 00:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I see many gaping issues with this area.

Slavery: The basis of Prabhupada's teachings and in fact of ISKCON's is that of the soul. Having read his books, it is quite evident to me that he strongly insists that the body and its characteristics are not representative of the soul within, and this can be seen in many of his writings and evidenced by anyone who actually knew him.

Lower Castes: I don't know why this is here. This statement is similar to saying "manual workers don't need much training, but doctors and skilled jobs do", which is true.

Hitlers and Jews: In the first quote, he mentions previous demons (Hiranyakasipu and Kamsa) in his definition of heroes. I can say with absolute certainty that here he means "heroes" as "people with great power", as in his writings he has also denounced these entities many times over as they were antagonistic towards Prahlada (a devotee of God) and Krishna (God himself). Therefore, this statement cannot be used as proof of him supporting antisemitism. Second quote follows same logic as the quote from slavery: against his teachings, so probably a false quote. Thechamp9002 (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia runs on reliable sources and that content is well-sourced. You are have not given any sources just your personal opinion. If you have reliable secondary sources presenting different views feel free to cite them but we do not cite primary sources or personal opinion. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The whole "Views" section is full of bigoted, wrong, evil, and fringe ideas. They should not just be cited (slavery is great, Hitler was a hero, Jews need to be killed, evolution is nonsense, the moon landing never happened) but put in a mainstream context, just as we would do it in articles about other crackpots. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So quote where prabhupad said hitler was a hero, or that slavery is gteay, or that jews need to be killed (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because those views generated more notability for him as clearly highlighted by the reliable sources. Editorkamran (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, none of them actually say that prabhupad "advocated for hitlers holocaust"...and by hero, is also refering to kamsa and hiranyakashipu who are demons. In fact in that very same convo prabhupad calls hitler a demon. The people who edited this page know this. They are just being so unbelievablely bad faith. (talk) 15:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That content was added by an experienced user Editorkamran so I doubt there has been misrepresentation. The source given for the content about Hitler is The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant which is a reliable academic source, I have not read it yet but I have access to it, so I will check it tonight and verify the source. I plan on improving the article so will definitely check the book out later. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"advocated for hitlers holocaust" is not mentioned anywhere but "He held Jews to be responsible for Holocaust". It is a well-known antisemitic trope to hold Jews responsible for the atrocities caused on them by Hitler. Editorkamran (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've reverted to the pre-war version of the article. Consensus shoud be reached first here on the talk page as per Wikipedia rules. Now about the problems with the information that several editors try to add to the article: 1. While The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant is indeed a publication edited by indologist Edwin F. Bryant and published by an academic publisher, it is in fact a compilation of articles written mostly by current and former ISKCON devotees, most of them are not scholars. 2. The cource is improperly cited, on the pages cited there is an article by a former ISKCON member and Harikesa Swami's disciple Ekkehard Lorenz. 3. In the contributor's section it's stated that Ekkehard Lorenz is "a student of Indology with focus on medieval ancient Sanskrit at the Institute for Oriental Languages at the University of Stokholm, Sweden". In other words, the authot is not a scholar in the field, not a scholar at all (he didn't even have a higher education at the time of writing). Therefore his analysis of Swami Bhaktivedanta's teachings have zero weight and should not be added to the article. 4. I was not able to find any other source that mentions those controversial statements on race, Hitler etc. When (and if) such sources will be found, we can discuss here adding this information to the article.--Gaura79 (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your last edit was not acceptable, you are deleting far too much. You have admitted the book is reliable published by an academic publisher, we do not need to be doing ad-hominem attacks on its authors as the publisher is a reliable source. I do not see any valid reason to remove that source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The author of the article should also be reliable, not only the publisher. And it seems you have conveniently forgotten about WP:RSUW. I'm simply reverting to the last consensus version of the article. This is done per Wikipedia rules WP:Consensus. These statements are poorly sourced and I expalined above why. I'm not attacking the author, I'm simply stating the obvious: he's not a scholar and his take on Swami's views is not significant enough to be included in the article. If this information is so important, why can't you find a proper source that corraborate Lorenz's "findings" about Swami being a racist and an anti-semite? A source that is scholarly and neutral? And why should we omit other Swami's views that are really important and have tons of material written about them and include instead a biased Tabloid-style analysis from a person who is not even a scholar? --Gaura79 (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are falsely labeling Hollywood Reporter "not an RS in this subject"[11], stating "Ekkehard Lorenz is not a RS"[12] despite the book is published by New York University Press and you claim that "publication edited by indologist Edwin F. Bryant and published by an academic publisher" is ultimately not reliable.
These claims confirm that you are simply whitewashing. There are more reliable sources[13] which cover these statements from Bhaktivendanta Swami but we don't need them per WP:OVERKILL. Editorkamran (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, that article is declaredly just a journalist's opinion. Secondly, no it's not whitewashing -To pin up a single isolated statement, taken from private conversations and out of context, from a prolific author of dozens of books acclaimed by scholars and a lecturer of thousands of public lectures, and to call it his "view" is an unbalanced presentation to say the least, if not a grossly misrepresenting one. Thirdly, if you really want to get into the matter you would do well to research Bhaktivedanta Swami's style of writing and lecturing, and ultimately his philosophy and the philosophy of the Vedas. It is ignorance to interpret these quotes as discrimination on the basis of race, gender or caste. Lastly, it is ludicrous to deny primary sources, which would indeed, if given the opportunity, counter these misinterpretations, when all you've done so far is quote secondary sources that themselves quote primary sources. (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are convinced that these quotes are "misrepresenting" Bhaktivedenata. Are there any secondary reliable sources which hold the same view? Editorkamran (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To say that something is acceptable because it comes from a reliable source is also ad hominem. Therefore to counter that claim with another ad hominem argument is perfectly fine in debating. (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gaura79 has been blocked for sock-puppetry. I believe these IP addresses that all trace to the same place are him or associated with him, I have filed an SPI [14] Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to me that the characterization of these particular points as “views“ in this article (especially in the absence of Prabhupada’s primary spiritual emphases) is giving them far too much prominence, as though they are the main pillars of his teachings. In my opinion, this constitutes a bias. Many similar articles on religious leaders Will offer one’s primary views under such a headache, and perhaps have a separate section titled “controversies” or “controversial views”. This would be far more neutral and balanced. Davidbgreenberg (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for the typo: “Headache” should read “heading”. Davidbgreenberg (talk) 11:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These quotes are taken out of context. I ask that you please desist in the slander of Srila Prabhupāda. 2600:4040:2BDD:E600:A4E6:1DD3:A57D:4E9B (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:RS (and common sense) say that credentials of the author affect reliability, you say it doesn't matter. I think you should take this discussion more seriously:

When editors talk about sources that are being cited on Wikipedia, they might be referring to any one of these three concepts:

Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people.

Gaura79 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First find equally reliable sources which dispute these quotations. Just nitpicking reliable sources is disruptive. Editorkamran (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I clearly stated in this disscussion why this source is not good according to WP:RS and WP:RSUW. And on top of that the source doesn't support the statement you try to add to the article. This is all E. Lorenz says about Prabhupada, Hitler and Jews:

In a monarchy, a king with a prestigious position follows the great deeds of his forefathers.91

Gradually the democratic government is becoming unfit for the needs of the people, and therefore some parties are trying to elect a dictator. A dic- tatorship is the same as a monarchy, but without a trained leader. Actu- ally people will be happy when a trained leader, whether a monarch or a dictator, takes control of the government and rules the people according to the standard regulations of the authorized scriptures.92 Statements like the last one, in which Bhaktivedanta Swami declares that he fa- vors even dictatorship above democracy, are by no means rare: So monarchy or dictatorship is welcome. Now the Communists, they want dictatorship. That is welcome, provided that particular dictator is trained like Maharaja Yudhishthira.93 I like this position, dictatorship. Personally I like this.94 Bhaktivedanta Swami’s appreciation for dictatorship is further underlined by his generally approving remarks about Hitler. While he often mentions Hitler to give an example of materialistic scheming, he nevertheless calls him a hero and a gentleman: Why should our temples support or denounce Hitler. If somebody says something in this connection it must simply be some sentiment. We have nothing to do with politics.95 So these English people, they were very expert in making propaganda. They killed Hitler by propaganda. I don’t think Hitler was so bad man.96 Hitler knew it [the atom bomb] . . . everything, but he did not like to do it. . . . He was gentleman. But these people are not gentlemen. He knew it perfectly well. He said that “I can smash the whole world, but I do not use that weapon.” The Germans already discovered. But out of humanity they did not use it.97 Sometimes he becomes a great hero—just like Hiranyakashipu and Kamsa or, in the modern age, Napoleon or Hitler. The activities of such men are certainly very great, but as soon as their bodies are finished, everything else is finished.98 Therefore Hitler killed these Jews. They were financing against Germany. Otherwise he had no enmity with the Jews. . . . And they were supplying. They want interest money—“Never mind against our country.” There-

fore Hitler decided, “Kill all the Jews.”99

Gaura79 (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources are reliable for the information. You have not provided equally reliably sources which debunk the information.
Now dont shift goalposts. That quote about Hitler was correctly added. Editorkamran (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have read through the book The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant, especially the comments on Swami Prabhupada's comments on Hitler pages 369-370. The content on the Wikipedia article is accurate to the source. Gaura79's argument appears to be that the source is unreliable because Lorenz is a former disgruntled Hare Krishna. This is irrelevant because the source is being used to quote directly from Swami Prabhupada. Gaura79 appears to be embarrassed(?) about Prabhupada's pro-Hitler comments and wants them removed but this is not a valid reason, it is white-washing. This is a reliable secondary source published by a reliable publisher. We do not need to be doing 'personal researchers' into the author. We just cite what reliable sources say. We are quoting Swami Prabhupada directly. The quotes have not been taken out of context. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just jumping in here to say @Gaura79: is quite right that only things discussed in reliable secondary sources should be included, and it seems like he left in the potentially embarrassing things that are properly sourced. I don't know about Lorenz specifically. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of the used sources are "reliable secondary sources". Ekkehard Lorenz has been frequently cited by other scholarly sources as well with regards to ISCKON.[15][16] Editorkamran (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The actual problem is that ACBSP's beliefs are not put into context. We should not just say he believes X, but that he believes X, which contradicts the scientific consensus (or whatever is appropriate). If we do not have a source that says things like that, we should delete his wacky beliefs because of WP:FRINGE. Ignorant people (children, for instance) will otherwise give those ideas credit. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is fine, I will make sure the amount of sections have been lowered and more context has been provided with the help of sources mentioned above. It will be done soon. Editorkamran (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are serious problems with quotes taken out of context in the views section because the "reliable" secondary source(s) have themselves taken the quotes out of context. One would then have to comb through the works of Swami Prabhupada to get a better context. As it is now there seems to be a bit of a smear campaign going on. I wonder if attempts to provide context will be blocked by saying, "you can't quote from Swami Prabhupada's own works to provide context, you can only quote from secondary works." That to me would indicate serious malintent. van Lustig (talk) 10:15, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Even if some of his comments were taken out of context (as his defenders and apologists sometimes assert), the sheer volume and magnitude of his immense bigotry cannot be ignored nor sugar-coated." Editorkamran (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You don't know that. You are basing what you have said on quotes taken out of context. It appears to me that even if exculpatory texts were provided you would block them. It strongly appears to me that you have a predetermined agenda that you want to see fulfilled. van Lustig (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For example in the views section the following is written:
'Swami said that black people should remain in bondage.
"The blacks were slaves. They were under control. And since you have given them equal rights they are disturbing, most disturbing, always creating a fearful situation, uncultured and drunkards. What training they have got? They have got equal rights? It is best, to keep them under control as slaves but give them sufficient food, sufficient cloth, not more than that. Then they will be satisfied."'
That is one statement out of a whole conversation. Here is the more of that conversation to put it in context.
Prabhupāda: Revolution means they are dissatisfied.
Satsvarūpa: French Revolution, Russian Revolution.
Prabhupāda: These things were not going nicely. Therefore gradually it broke. But if things are going nicely, people will be happy. They will not revolt. You have to keep the citizens satisfied in all respects. You must know the necessity how people are satisfied. You have to arrange the government in that way. Then there will be no revolution. Mass of people, if they are satisfied, they will not revolt. But they do not know the process. The "demoncracy," the common man is allowed to vote. He has no knowledge, and he's voting. This is most condemned process. Camara-bhangi, a sweeper, he is voted to become Minister of Defense. His business is to cleanse the street, and now he's voted to become, because he has got number of votes. So many bhaṅgis, they vote, "Yes, he is our leader. He should be Defense Minister." You have to do that. This is democracy. His business is to sweep, and he's voted a defense minister.
Hari-śauri: But in, say in America, they argue that everybody's educated now. In America...
Prabhupāda: What educated? Educated means hippies. That's all. This is their education. They do not know what is meant by education. Education... University student was informed that "Next birth you may become a dog," so he said, "What is the wrong there?" This is education. Is that education, that he agrees to become a dog very happily? There is no education. Simply waste of time.
Satsvarūpa: But at least if there is extreme exploitation by a king or dictator, it can't be changed. But the people...
Prabhupāda: There cannot be exploitation if things are made in order. Just like kṣatriya should be trained up as kṣatriya. Then he is king. Not that a bhangi by vote becomes a king. This is education.
śauryaṁ tejo dhṛtir dākṣyaṁ
yuddhe cāpy apalāyanam
dānam īśvara-bhāvaś ca
kṣātraṁ karma svabhāva-jam
[Bg. 18.43]
He must be very powerful, very strong, strongly built. You have seen the picture, Rāmacandra? Sturdy body. You see. Lakṣmaṇa. Because kṣatriya. They should be trained up as kṣatriya. Therefore the varṇāśrama college is required to train people who is able to become a brāhmaṇa, who is able to become a kṣatriya, who is able to become... In this way division must be. And according to the quality and work there must be division for cooperation. There is a big scheme. They have lost. They do not know. All bhaṅgis, camara, śūdras, they are simply given vote. That's all. Where is the training?
Hari-śauri: But what is the use of having big strong body if now they're using airplanes and tanks and guns?
Prabhupāda: That is your useless waste of time. Why? Therefore the war does not stop, unnecessary war. And such a big war, Kurukṣetra, in eighteen days it is finished. This is... And this is going on, continually war, strain, politics, diplomacy, lecture, parliament. There is no finishing of war. There is no finishing. It will go on. Just like same example: if you keep the dogs as dogs, they'll going on barking. It will never finish. So this is the civilization of dog work. It is not human civilization. Therefore it is going on. War is not stopped. Where is stop? War is stopped? No. Going on. And it will go on, because they are dogs. You cannot stop their barking. There are so many things. If we follow the instruction of Bhagavad-gītā, then whole world will be... This is a fact. Now, how to implement it, that is another thing. But it is a fact.
Hari-śauri: Because even the yavanas and mlecchas were following the kṣatriya system in Kṛṣṇa's time. Just like Jarāsandha. He had all the chivalrous respect of a kṣatriya, even though he was a demon. But nowadays everybody's... No one is...
Prabhupāda: Everybody's śūdra. Nobody's brāhmaṇa, nobody's...
Hari-śauri: No.
Prabhupāda: Śūdra is to be controlled only. They are never given to be freedom. Just like in America: the blacks were slaves; they were under control. And since you have given them some equal rights, they are disturbing, most disturbing, always creating a fearful situation, uncultured and drunkards. What training they have got? They have got equal right? That is best, to keep them under control as slaves but give them sufficient food, sufficient cloth, not more than that. Then they will be satisfied.
Hari-śauri: If that's done, then how will those who have some potential to be educated, how will we recognize them?
Prabhupāda: Either educate them or control them. Give them facility of education. But there is no education at all. Even for the whites there is no education. So we are stressing on the point of education. You educate certain section as brāhmaṇa, certain section as kṣatriya, certain section as vaiśya. In that education we don't discriminate because he's coming of a śūdra family. Take education; be qualified. Then you talk. Not by votes.
So when we see the whole conversation we find that Prabhupada is not endorsing slavery but actually stressing that instead of controlling through slavery that everyone including blacks should be educated in spiritual knowledge. And that there is no discrimination regarding their former background. This is the opposite message from what the quote taken out of context says.
So the question arises, why, when all his works are easily available to the public, do you stress one sentence that gives a negative view, but when put in context gives the opposite view? Is this fair minded? What is the reason? Do you see why one might have reasonable grounds to question the motivation of the person(s) who took the quote out of context? What picture are they trying to paint and why?
And this is just one point. The same can be done for all the others. You said "immense bigotry" and I agree, but it is not Prabhupada who is the bigot, but those who try to paint him as one by using using the fallacy of quote mining and taking them out of context.
This will not go away, I assure you. van Lustig (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for providing that racist comment from Swami Prabhupada, which proves the opposite to what you are saying. "Just like in America: the blacks were slaves; they were under control. And since you have given them some equal rights, they are disturbing, most disturbing, always creating a fearful situation, uncultured and drunkards. What training they have got? They have got equal right? That is best, to keep them under control as slaves but give them sufficient food, sufficient cloth, not more than that." It is clear from that quote that Swami Prabhupada had a very low view of black people and he was indeed a racist man. The quote has not been taken out of context. His comments were no different to what white supremacists such as Ben Klassen were saying at the time. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More from Swami Prabhupada in 1975, "These groups of men are considered very fallen, kirāta, the black men. They are called niṣāda. Niṣāda was born of Vena, King Vena. So they are habituated to steal; therefore they have been given a separate place, African jungles" [17]. And from 1977 "And especially in your country it will be dangerous because these blacks, if they don't get employment, they will create havoc, these blacks. And they are not civilized. They want money, and if they don't get money, then they will create havoc." [18]. Swami Prabhupada disliked black people and he thought they were uncivilized. It's stupid to try and make up excuses about this or claim quoting out of context. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More racist comments from Swami Prabhupada. Room conversation August 10, 1976, Tehran. "Jnanagamya: In America the Negro situation was very bad, and they made many films showing heroic Negroes and now the situation is much better. The people are not so much agitated by seeing Negroes. They think "Oh, now a Negro has some good qualities." Because of these films they have come to appreciate. So like that, if a devotee is a hero they will also appreciate. Prabhupāda: Do they? I don't appreciate. I don't think the Negro question is solved." [19] Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is anyone denying he said racist things? The question is whether said racism has received significant coverage in second- and third-party sources. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 14:20, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes a fair number of sources have been already provided in this entire discussion that these views have been covered and described in several reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Editorkamran (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi all! @Thechamp9002: @Psychologist Guy: @Editorkamran: @Gaura79:
I have reviewed the ongoing discussion on the talk page and have taken a look at the primary sources and secondary sources that have been noted. After considering the discussion above, I would agree that the academic source should be retained in the article and also believe that the views section needs more work to make it more balanced.
First, I would like to address the academic source that has been utilized, namely "The Hare Krishna Movement: The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant." This source is published by the Columbia University Press and is subject to a rigorous peer-review process. Academic sources like this undergo a thorough evaluation by experts in the field, so while there may be some hesitation regarding the author, Lorenz, who is a scholar, it is important to note that the information on his views are being presented through a secondary source. After taking a look at the source as well, it clear to me that Lorenz has accurately documented the words from the primary source. Therefore, it is reasonable to keep the source as it probably has not been misrepresented.
Moreover, it is worth noting that @Sam van lustig has directly extracted information from the primary source above, which further emphasizes the reliability of the secondary source. In this case, it is evident that both the secondary and primary sources align in their portrayal of the views being discussed. I think it is also important to acknowledge that scholars can occasionally make mistakes. However, in the context of this discussion, the primary source indicates to me that there is not any apparent error or misinterpretation. Therefore, it is reasonable to think the information being presented is reliable and should be retained in the article.
Lastly, I would like to discuss a concern I have about the current imbalance in the Views section of the article. It appears that only negative views that cast Prabhupada in a negative light have been highlighted. Considering the vast array of topics that Prabhupāda has expressed views on, it is likely that there are positive views that should be represented in the article as well. In order to maintain a neutral point of view within the article, I believe that it is warranted to bring balance to the characterization of Prabhupāda's views. I'm open to all of your thoughts! RealPharmer3 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we ignore all his extremist and pseudoscientific views, the only positive thing he did was advocate for vegetarianism. I would like to add a section on his vegetarianism. I am sure there will be no objections to that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Psychologist Guy,
If you could start incorporating those views in the article, I think that would definitely be a good start. I'll do some digging to see what i can find as well. RealPharmer3 (talk) 02:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gaura79 is a sock-puppeteer and is indef blocked. Sam van lustig is repeatedly putting comments on here but they are personal attacks against me, per WP:PA this is not acceptable behaviour. This talk-page is not about me. If it happens again I will report Sam van lustig and he should be blocked by an admin. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi all,
I've seen the conversation that has unfolded here and I think it is in everyones best interest to remain calm, cool, and collected. @Sam van lustig You obviously have strong feelings about the subject matter, but speaking emotionally and taking hits at other editors will not help your case. No need to get too worked up, lets try to find a resolution and work together. If you have a specific desire to present material in the article, it would probably be in your best interest to present it and provide supporting evidence (ideally, they are high quality secondary sources, that is the policy). And @Psychologist Guy, I would love for you to help out with adding those views on vegetarianism! I think that would definitely broaden the scope of this article! RealPharmer3 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Initiated Name[edit]

His initiated name was Srila Prabhupad, not Swami Prabhupad. 2601:645:900:480:93:13FF:FE53:81EC (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

His initiated name was (Bhaktivedanta) Swami, assuming you mean sannyasa initiation. (His previous initiated name was Abhay Charanaravinda Das.) "Prabhupada" is an honorific also used by other Gaudiya Vaishnava leaders. Dāsānudāsa (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2023[edit]

The place where Abhay Charanarvinda Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada met his spiritual master is Ultadanga, Kolkata. Not Allahabad. Fake information.

And Views on slavery and casteism and racism are picked without knowing the context of the talks or lecture. It is just picked from the words not conversation. Thank you 009Priyanshusharma (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I have changed the place where they met from Allahabad to Kolkata. Thanks for pointing out that error.
  • On the matter of his remarks about race and caste, you have not said what changes think should be made, so it isn't possible to make them. However, I do think there's a good case for rewriting the relevant sections, for two reasons:
  1. A mere list of quotes is not, in my opinion, an entirely good way to indicate his views, and it might be better to have a prose text outlining his views and giving them some context.
  2. Checking published sources I have found much more of the same; the snippets quoted considerably understate the extent of his negative remarks about people of what he regards as inferior races. It would therefore be a good idea to write a more extensive account of the things which he has said on the relevant subjects, to give a more accurate impression of the extent to which he has expressed negative views on such people. JBW (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]