from interview with Garuda das (ACBSP)
Interviewer: As a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, how do you respond to controversial statements in his books, especially when teaching in academic or public settings?
Garuda das: Our responsibility as disciples is not to alter what Srila Prabhupada said, but to illuminate it honestly and carefully. There are certainly statements in his books that I would never repeat in my university classes or even in devotional settings. But I must honor that Srila Prabhupada wrote them. Our job is to understand our spiritual teacher, not to revise him.
I’ve met students and devotees who are uncomfortable with certain statements, and that discomfort is valid. It’s not our place to dismiss them. Instead, we need to observe that discomfort, be honest with it, and enter into dialogue with advanced devotees—those who can elevate our understanding. This is what leads us to realization, not censorship.
Interviewer: Some suggest that we should remove controversial parts of Srila Prabhupada’s books. Do you agree?
Garuda das: That approach is dangerous. Imagine removing things we just “don’t like” or find politically incorrect. That’s not the behavior of a sincere disciple. Our tradition values illumination, not deletion. Some statements may indeed challenge our conditioning, but we need to contextualize, not discard.
Interviewer: What if devotees use those statements to justify superiority or mistreatment in the name of Founder-Acharya?
Garuda das: Okay, that is a very serious matter because it just destructive to do that. It is very destructive to do that. That’s deeply troubling. When scripture becomes a weapon—when sAstra becomes sastra (short “a” weapon)—it causes harm. I’ve seen senior devotees misapply statements in destructive ways. Srila Prabhupada never intended for his teachings to justify egoism or abuse. So we’re exchanging, nourishing things, but not harmful, discouraging things. Then that could move into the realm of aparadha, which we easily translate as offense. But you know what aparadha really means? I mean, it means pushing someone away from loving worship, discouraging someone from loving worship.
The responsibility falls on us to teach only what we truly understand. If you don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t talk. We must never weaponize Srila Prabhupada’s words.
But Prabhupada said we should repeat the philosophy. But we should not imitate him in the repetition of the philosophy. This is very subtle. That is very subtle and important. Srila Prabhupada always said, preach according to your realization.
Interviewer: As an academic and devotee, do you think we need supplementary commentaries or guides for Srila Prabhupada’s books?
Garuda das: Absolutely. In fact, in 2005 the BBT approached me to write a 30-page booklet to accompany Bhagavad-gita As It Is, to help new readers navigate the work. I spent a year preparing it, but it was shelved without explanation.
Still, this is necessary. Devotees need bridge literature—commentaries, guides, and reflections—so that Srila Prabhupada’s works can be appreciated across different audiences and generations. It’s not dilution; it’s illumination.
Interviewer: What about statements that deal with sensitive social issues, like race or gender, which may seem misinformed or archaic?
Garuda das: There are different levels of understanding. In the sattvic mode, we see the totality of Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, not isolated lines. He was not an expert anthropologist or psychologist, and he never claimed to be. But his essential teachings are flawless. If we mistake peripheral, experimental statements as the essence, we misunderstand his purpose.
For example, someone once asked Prabhupada to bless a book on bhakti psychology. Prabhupada asked, “What are your qualifications?” That shows he respected academic discipline. So when we talk about these issues, we should also be qualified—not just quoting out of context.
Interviewer: As time passes and Srila Prabhupada’s direct disciples are fewer, how can new generations maintain fidelity to Founder-Acharya’s mission?
Garuda das: Our tradition is built on dialogue. We must cultivate it. We need mature voices—not immature speculation or repetition without realization. If Prabhupada is a Shakti-avesha-avatar or a maha-purusha, then his teachings will always invite deeper study.
When I teach, I don’t say “Prabhupada is this or that.” Instead, I say, “Prabhupada changed my life. He brought Krishna to me.” That’s honest, and it’s powerful. No one can argue with experience.
Interviewer: How should we deal with statements like “women are less intelligent” in Srila Prabhupada’s books? A lot of devotees, they’re interested in this, because I think a lot of devotees struggle with this, to be honest. Srila Prabhupada has mentioned in his books or first thing maybe we can talk about this, which a lot of devotees bring to my attention, is that in the Bhagavad-gita, in the Second Chapter, there’s this idea or the statement of women being less intelligent. So can give you kind of give your experience with this statement, how you’ve processed it and how you explain it to people or whatever you want to, you know, however you, you know, process, I guess, we can start there.
Garuda das: Sure. I need to preface my remarks.
First of all, I cannot solve that problem right here and now. I mean, really, this has gone on for too long. And devotees have suffered with it for such a long time.
And first, I want to preface my solution to an understanding of this, you know, difficult issue by explaining that we devotees have an option of approaching our philosophy with a tamasic view or a rajasic view or a sattvic view. This is explained in the Bhagavad-gita. I won’t go into, you know, particulars right now because we have a limited amount of time. But a tamasic view is a very narrow view. A rajasic view is more open, is more open-minded. And sattvic is broad-minded, to use Prabhupada’s term. Now, many devotees will take a statement that Prabhupada makes and will not consider context or other similar or related statements. That would be tamasic understanding. When trying to take a statement and take it with other statements that Prabhupada has made, that would be more sattvic, there’s more light…
Okay, sattvic that’s light. Tamasic means dark. Rajasic means there’s some light now coming through.
Sattvic understanding takes a statement that has been made and understands it in light of
the totality of our philosophy.
Now, Prabhupada and scripture will talk about, you know, women, Vedic society and so on and so forth, and women being less intelligent. Even Prabhupada, I think he’s even joked a little bit about it.
So let me explain this. That when Srila Prabhupada makes the assertion, women are less intelligent than men, this cannot stand alone without the reverse corollary. First of all, let me explain what is being said in light of the, you know, seeking a sattvica understanding. Women are less intelligent than men in the ways that men tend to be intelligent. But the necessary corollary to that is men are less intelligent than women in the ways that women tend to.
Once I was sitting there once with my dear Godsister, Vishakha Devi Dasi, who was asking me about it, “How do you understand this?”
And I said, “Look, Vishakha, it’s really easy.” One of the several qualities of the feminine that is provided by Krishna in the Bhagavad-gita is medha, which means intelligence. So how is it that suddenly women are stupid when they’re intelligent? According to the Gita, medha means intelligent. But you see, buddhi is a
little different than medha. And I said, I described that medha means intelligent in a certain kind of way. And buddhi means intelligent in a certain other kind of way. So women have a different kind of intelligence.
And we can see this. This is not counterintuitive. Why is it that women really know how to take care of children better than men? I mean, that’s a generalization. But we can see that that’s the case. Look at primary education. Mostly women educate children. Women have a special intelligence.
And now in modern Western women’s studies, it shows that women have their own kind of intelligence. But men have their own kind of intelligence.
It doesn’t mean that a woman can’t take up the intelligent tasks of a man and vice versa. My fifth grade teacher was a man. While most teachers in my primary school were women. So we’re making generalizations here. This is why it takes a woman and a man to raise a little baby human. It takes, ideally, a woman’s intelligence and a man’s intelligence to raise a human. And they each are endowed with a special intelligence. Medha for a woman, buddhi for a man.
Interviewer: What do you recommend for those who find parts of Founder-Acharya’s writings confusing or disturbing?
Garuda das: First, absorb. Read. Reflect. If you don’t understand, acknowledge it. Then bring it into dialogue with others. Be honest. Third, only after that process, share it. Present it with integrity.
If something doesn’t make sense right now, put it on the shelf. Return to it later. Have faith that the realization will come. Prabhupada had a very particular kind of discourse. He would speak on relatively unimportant topics in absolute way. And that was his dramatic style of teaching. When Prabhupada does it, he’s doing it as an ambassador from the spiritual world. He’s doing it as a representative of Krishna bhakti, and he’s trying to establish it and force us in a way.
Reading Srila Prabhupada’s books is not like reading a novel. It’s a sadhana—a devotional practice. If we approach it with that mindset, our understanding will deepen over time.