What Did Tulsi dasa Goswami Actually Write?
Artist’s rendition of Tulsi dasa Goswami.
April 12, 1969: On this date in history, Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada teaches his disciples the verses allegedly written by the Vaishnava poet-saint Tulsi dasa Goswami (c. 1511-1623), “A drum, an idiot, a sudra, a dog, and a woman are all eligible for a beating.” Prabhupada compares a woman to a dog. “If you become lenient, then she will be troublesome. . . . The husband beats, and she is tamed (laughter).”
Tulsi dasa Goswami was a great poet, known as an incarnation of Valmiki. He wrote thousands of verses. A thoughtful reader might wonder, “Why did Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada choose this one particular verse to teach his disciples, and not something less misogynistic from the great writings of Tulsi dasa Goswami?”
During his April 12th darshan with disciples, Prabhupada continues by saying that wife beating should be legalized in civilized countries. Prabhupada COULD HAVE taught his disciples the verse by Tulsi dasa, but cautioned them, “Perhaps this might have been proper behavior between husband and wife hundreds of years ago, but today NO HUSBAND SHOULD BEAT HIS WIFE!” But Prabhupada DID NOT SAY THIS. He laughed heartily when comparing women to dogs. His disciples knew what he meant.
Many, many of Prabhupada’s male disciples heartily imbibed their master’s teachings about women. Years later, at the rural New Vrindaban Krishna commune in Marshall County, West Virginia, Kirtanananda Swami, the leader of the commune, liked to tell his householder disciples, “Three things improve with a good beating: your dog, your drum, and your wife.” I heard Kirtanananda Swami say this with my own ears.
Some women came to mangal-aroti in the temple with black eyes and bruises on their faces. They told their friends, “I got the mercy last night.” The New Vrindaban sankirtan leader was violent, especially to one of his wives in particular, and when she talked back at him in an unsubmissive tone, he beat her with a rubber hose, until she passed urine on the cold basement concrete floor. One of his wives recalled:
I witnessed one such beating with my own eyes. It took place in the basement of the Sankirtan House. I walked down the steps and froze. Pradhana Gopika was on the floor in her underwear while Dharmatma severely beat her with a rubber hose. When he saw me, he screamed at me to mind my own business. Pradhana was black and blue and covered in welts. I remember she was passing urine on the floor. After these beatings—and it happened this time as well—Dharmatma forced her to put on a sari, cover her head, and then scrub the floor on her hands and knees until he said enough. Before he discovered the value of using a rubber hose, Pradhana had been beaten with a cane, a wood file, and a wooden hanger—each of which had broken. After that, Dharmatma always used a piece of black rubber hose.
No where has it been said that Keith Ham was cruel to women until after he joined ISKCON. Where did Kirtanananda Swami hear this teaching about how to make women submissive? He got it straight from his spiritual master. If you know the history, you can understand what was the source of the widespread mistreatment of women in ISKCON. It came from the top.
For more, see, Gold, Guns and God, Vol. 4, p. 25.
“The husband beats, and she is tamed (laughter).”
Another thoughtful reader might ask, “Did Tulsi dasa Goswami, regarded by millions as a great saintly devotee of Lord Ramachandra, actually say that five objects should be beaten? Or did Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada translate Tulsi dasa Goswami’s verse incorrectly?”
Unfortunately, Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada translated Tulsi dasa Goswami’s verse incorrectly, which resulted in the mistreatment of thousands of women in ISKCON. Tulsi never said that drums, idiots, sudras, dogs and women should be “beaten.” Tulsi said they should be “understood.” Fortunately, Dr. Pradeep Kumar Mohanty, a Visiting Professor at XIM University in Bhubaneswar, India, has given the correct translation of Tulsi dasa’s verse. Following is a summary of Mohanty’s explanation, followed by a more-in-depth explanation:
Kanak means Gold, Kanak also means Dhatura (a poisonous fruit). Now only fools would interpret Gold as Dhatura, randomly, without understanding the context. Hindi language has several such words which have more than one meaning. Such words are called shlesh.
One meaning of Taadan (ताड़न) is “to beat” which is a verb. Other meaning of Taadna (ताड़ना) a noun, which means “to be introspected/understood.”
Both are absolutely two different things. Tulsidasji wrote word Taadna (ताड़ना) and not Taadan (ताड़न). Sadly no one differentiates on this point and confuses both to be the same, because they are similar sounding.
Therefore, the correct translation is: “A drum, an ignorant person, a sudra, an animal and a woman should all be understood.” In a September 5, 2025 comment on the author’s Facebook page, Mohanty provides a more detailed explanation of the correct interpretation of Tulsi dasa Goswami’s verse:
Kanak means Gold, Kanak also means Dhatura (a poisonous fruit). Now only fools would interpret Gold as Dhatura, randomly, without understanding the context.
Hindi language has several such words which have more than one meaning. Such words are called shlesh.
One meaning of Taadan (ताड़न) is “to beat” which is a verb.
Other meaning of Taadna (ताड़ना) is a noun, which means “to be introspected/understood.”
Both are absolutely two different things. By the way Tulsidasji also wrote word Taadna (ताड़ना) and not Taadan (ताड़न). Sadly no one differentiates on this point also and confuse both to be the same, because they have similar sounding. Another example is word kaaran (कारण) which means “reason,” and kaarnaa (कारणा) which means “pain/torture.”
So just by adding one ‘आ’ matra, the meaning changes significantly. Here also fools would interpret both word to be the same, because they sound substantially similar.
Grammatically also one cannot be adhikari (deserve) of a verb, One can only be adhikari of a noun.
That is why dhol/dholak needs to be understood/introspected to play the sur-taal correctly. Merely beating a dholak does not produce correct sur-taal. So how can Tulsidasji suggest go on “beating” a dholak?
An ignorant/ganwaar also needs to be understood/introspected, as without understanding an ignorant person’s mind, he/she cannot be given correct treatment. In real life also people get frustrated with ignorant people and lose their patience, and start calling them names or even start abusing them. (Example: You Fool! Can’t you walk properly.. or You Idiot! Where is your mind..)
But Tulsidasji says one should try to introspect and understand an ignorant person, rather than losing one’s patience.
Shudra/Sevak (English meaning is employees) also needs to be understood and introspected. This is because employers always have a tendency to not have any sympathy for personal respect or personal life of employees and they always think that employees is always wrong. In real life also, employers do not care what problem employee is facing but want them to even come to office on holidays and work. So that is why Sevaks should be understood and introspected, their real problems should be understood, their personal aspirations/respect should also be taken into consideration.
Pashu/Animal/Beastly person should also be understood. Because people have a tendency to attack animals at the drop of a hat. If a cow, goat, sheep or horse is not moving in a correct direction, people start using sticks or whips on them in merciless fashion. If a snake is spotted, that is immediately killed. So to prevent this Tulsidasji says one should understand & introspect animals correctly. If nobody touches a snake, the snake does not bite anybody. If cattle are given proper care and food they listen to their masters. That is why they should be understood correctly.
Last but certainly not the least, a Woman needs to be understood & introspected more than anything else. That is why Tulsidasji says so. The entire essence of Ramayana is how Ramji and Lakshmanaji and the entire Vanar sena and many many others fought and died, to save the respect of one woman, Sitaji.
How can then all of a sudden Tulsidasji talk about “beating” a woman in one isolated verse?
Another incident which can be highlighted for understanding & introspecting a woman is, people made false allegations on Sitaji, without understanding her, and because of this they forced Ramji to banish her from the kingdom.
Tulsidasji, whose entire prose and poetry in Ramcharitmanas is filled with deepest emotions and sentiments, so much so that he did not even write about the final sad part of Ramayana in which Sitaji was banished.
Tulsidasji who loved his wife so much that he hung onto a snake one night (thinking it to be rope) just to climb onto a window and meet his wife when she had to gone to her parent’s home.
How can such person even talk about beating a woman. Men from Bharat died for their women.
Shree Krishnaji and Pandavas destroyed the entire Kaurav clan, Keechak, Jayadrath, to take revenge of what they did to Draupadi. They never touched women even by their fingertip, forget about beating them.
However does anyone of you know that during British Rule, Britishers made this law in Britain, that a husband has a legal right to beat his wife with a wooden rod not exceeding 3 cms in radius?
In Islamic countries, it is legal for a husband to beat their wife. It is their culture, not Bharat’s.
Such deliberate incorrect interpretation is a mischief of these Britishers and Islamics, who made incorrect interpretations to make people lose faith on their own religion, culture, tradition and text.
To conclude, the above quoted chaupai is from Sundar Kaand. Here the Lord of Ocean, Samudra, tries to pacify the anger of Shree Ram, when Shree Ram ignites his Agneyastra (A weapon to vanquish the ocean).
It is then he utters - प्रभु भल कीन्ह मोहि सिख दीन्ही। मरजादा पुनि तुम्हरी कीन्ही॥ ढोल गँवार सूद्र पसु नारी । सकल ताड़ना के अधिकारी ॥
Meaning (includes continuous interpretation of preceding and succeeding chaupai/verse, as everything cannot be said and meant in one isolated line) -
It must undoubtedly be in good intentions of the Lord that he must have thought of teaching me a lesson, but at the same time duties, responsibilities and limits is also created by Him only and therefore Lord must also respect what he Himself has created. (मरजादा means limits as well as duties /responsibilities)
I am Samudra, akin to a Dhol (as I can produce waves, but not in a rhythm)
I am akin to a Ganwaar (as I do not have a sharp human mind of an intelligent person)
I am akin to a Shudra (as I provide service to my master)
I am akin to an Animal, Beast (as I do not have self control or emotions or intellect of humans)
I am akin to a Woman (who has a soft heart and is sensitive and who is not stone hearted. Here the focus is on water element of nature. Ocean is not rigid like a stone)
Like all these deserve proper understanding, therefore, I too deserve your understanding. (not your arrows or anger)
Note the use of metaphor by Samudra in comparing himself to the five above discussed characteristics.
HARE KRISHNA
Pradeep Kumar Mohanty
Visiting Professor, XIM University
Bhubaneswar, India
For more about Tulsi dasa Goswami, see: On This Date—August 11, 1511.
Professor Mohanty’s explanation is revealing, as it exposes a great error which ISKCON devotees have accepted as truth for over a half century, which directly contributed to the heinous mistreatment of thousands of women in ISKCON. In addtion, Mohanty refers to persons who interpret Sanskrit words incorrectly as “fools.” Was Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada a fool? Unfortunately, regarding his misogynistic interpretation of Tulsi dasa Goswami’s verse, it appears, in this particular case, he was.
After all, did Abhay Charan De ever receive a university degree with a major in Sanskrit? No. And that means he was self taught. And do you know what he said about self taught “experts?”
Self-made guru cannot be guru, he must be authorized by the bona fide guru. Then he’s guru. This is the fact. Nobody can be self-made anything. A medical practitioner, he cannot become self-made, that “I have studied all the medical books in my home.” No. “Have you ever gone to the medical college and taken instruction from the bona fide teachers?” Then, if you have got the certificate, then you are medical practitioner. Similarly, bona fide guru means he must be authorized by the superior guru.—Nectar of Devotion audio transcript, Vrindaban, India (October 31, 1972).
And yet thousands of people around the globe regard Prabhupada as a scholar of Sanskrit, and think his books will be the law books for humanity for the next 10,000 years.
Mohanty is not the first scholar to disagree with Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada’s purports. Dr. Kali Prasad Sinha (1937-2011), a renowned philosopher, linguist, poet, lyricist and social reformer who served as Professor and Dean of Assam University, Silchar, India, wrote thirty highly-acclaimed books. In one of Dr. Sinha’s books, A Critique of A. C. Bhaktivedanta, (304 pages) published in 1997 by Punthi-Pustak of Calcutta, Sinha reveals how Bhaktivedanta Swami, in his books, misinterprets the Advaita Vedanta philosophy.
Dr. Pradeep Kumar Mohanty (Facebook photo, posted December 9, 2023)
| Back to: Gold, Guns and God, Vol. 4 |