It is my opinion, and the opinion of most Hindus, that Prabhupada preaches ideas that go against the tenets of the Vedas. He was an extremist and a dualist. I place his ideas on the same level as fundamental Christianity (like born-agains and evangelists).
One thing I've noticed is that he often provides commentary that has nothing to do with the text it is linked with and rambles on about things that are not relevant and that are contradictory.
I do think there are good things about him and his teachings but I would not recommend him as a representation of Hinduism. He himself said that the religion he establish is not 'Hinduism'.
Having said that, you can read the texts without any issue. I only have problems with his commentaries, as they do not, I believe, always represent Krishna's teachings.
I agree with your comments. I still read the Bhagavad Gita, and after over 40 years of reading it, despite huge changes in my life and attitudes, the essential wisdom in it remains inspiring.
I still read the Prabhupad translation. The actual verses seem to be translated very well. I agree that the purports seem to have a life of their own, almost as if the actual verses were just a pretext to write them. So I just read the verses, which are sufficient in themselves.
And yes, Prabupada does seem to be a dualist, despite Caitanya's teaching of acintya bedaabeda tattva. I considered this for decades, wondering if he presented it that way to discourage 'premature emancipation' and the inflammation of ego in western students who did not have the age-old hindu milieu around them to keep their view stable.
I was pleasantly surprised to have some deeper and more subtle communication with some of the older long-term devotees, which indicated that they did indeed appreciate the subtlety of Caitanya's view.
Generally though, I found the mood and views within ISKCON to be, as you say, fundamentalist and dualist. Gaura Priya's comments were also relevant and accurate IMO. Whilst I was not studying other forms of vaishnavism, I was a student of Tibetan buddhism, and also spent some time studying and practicing with a Mevlevi sufi sheikh, and so I was able to place Bhagavad Gita in a broader context. I ignored the hysteria about mayavadi and impersonalism. In the end, I appreciated the warnings about the dangers of impersonalism, but I think they were overstated, and that ISKCON go so far in the opposite direction that self-realisation is almost forbidden.
I will add that my experience resolves the apparent contradiction between the teaching of Buddha and the Bhagavad Gita. It surprises me how much fuss is made over the differences, and how attached people become to that fuss...
