Origin and Development of ISKCON
Krishna (KRSNA)
By Mataji Parama Karuna Devi
ISKCON, or the “Hare Krishna movement”, became a major cultural and religious phenomenon in the 1970s, effectively introducing the Krishna bhakti cult at global level and giving immense popularity to ethical vegetarianism and to the traditional Indian scriptures Bhagavad gita and Bhagavata purana. However, with the disappearance of Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, the founder of ISKCON (International Society for Krishna Consciousness) the movement quickly degenerated and became famous for many negative reasons, especially for the children abuse in the Organisation’s Gurukulas, for the violent acts against some of the followers, for covert or overt persecution of dissenters, for the scandalous immoral activities of most of the leaders, for the gross mismanagement of funds and properties, for the extreme internal politicisation, for the cult-like fanatical ideological presentation, and for the bitter controversies between factions.
A huge majority of ISKCON members left the Organisation in a bitter state of mind – some after a short period, some after a longer period – but usually without understanding what had really gone wrong with their experience. Many of these migrated to Gaudiya math Organisations, some started “parallel” groups for the reform of ISKCON (such as IRM or the Prabhupadanugas etc), some ended up in the “new age spirituality” streams (for example getting into Reiki, “psychological healing” etc), and some simply became negative and resentful. The fortunes of the Organisation slowly declined, to a point where many temples and centers had to be closed or became empty, forcing the managers to hire paid people and/or “import” cheap manpower from India and other “second best” countries by offering support for immigration documents.
Some of the ISKCON leaders have been trying to recover a “virginity” for themselves and for the Organisation by adjusting the public relations work to accommodate the taste of perspective “customers” who could finance the temples and centers – especially traditionalist Hindus who needed a place to perform their marriages and support their social interactions, celebrate their favorite festivals, and feel encouraged in their ancestral beliefs and lifestyle. Another good “slice of the market pie” is constituted by those who are interested in getting an “alternative” academic course on conventional indological studies, since mainstream conventional academy is taught by professors that do not believe or follow the religious conclusions expressed in the texts they present.
Some ISKCON leaders have therefore changed their clothing into a more “professoral” style and created a good living for themselves with publications, seminars and courses of their own creation, especially with the help and support of the Mother Organisation to which they render an important public relations service. These developments are ideologically very distant from the intentions of the Founder of the Organisation, as they tend to become spiritually cynical and church-like, aimed at just giving a new coat of respectable-looking paint over the serious ideological problems that continue to fester deeper inside, unaddressed and unsolved.
Unfortunately, any discussion on these issues is perceived by ISKCON people as “offensive dissent”, “betrayal”, and “heretic rebellion”, and those who dare express anything that is not strictly according to the “Institutional policies” are actively persecuted in various ways, even when they openly dissociate from the Organisation. This persecution also strikes those who do not recognize the Organisation’s “monopoly” over the “trade marks” of Iskcon’s religious business, such as chanting the Hare Krishna mantra, teaching or writing about Bhagavad gita (and other traditional scriptures), opening a Krishna temple, naming one’s vegetarian restaurant “Govinda” or “Hare Krishna restaurant”, etc, even if they never express any criticism or antagonism towards Iskcon.
Those who dare to do so independently from the ISKCON umbrella Organisation or its sub-branches (also controlled by ISKCON) are sued, threatened of personal violence, sabotaged and opposed in all possible ways. So, under all aspects, ISKCON has become another Vatican.
They just glued the faces of Chaitanya and Krishna over the old images of Jesus Christ and the God of the Bible, and adjusted a few details here and there. And this is no wonder, if we go deeper into the study of Iskcon’s true beginnings, in the period under the British rule.
In those times Hinduism at large was systematically attacked as morally and academically unacceptable by the educational system imposed by the British government to those Indians who wanted to keep some prominent position in Indian society (those who later became known as “brown sahibs”). The christian schools in India zealously taught (and still teach) innocent and impressionable children that Hinduism is an ignorant bunch of primitive pagan superstitions and fables, while Christianity is the only acceptable and evolved model of theology, philosophy and ethics.
Even when the students are not forced to official conversion, such approach is terribly damaging and its effects often seep deeply into the subconscious level creating inferiority complexes, fears and other negative ideas, effectively distorting the understanding of Hindu values and robbing them of their actual meaning. This was the target explicitly stated by the educational system established by Macaulay & Co (which in my opinion should be carefully distinguished from English language per se).
Thus Kedarnath Datta (later known as Bhaktivinode), a very intelligent student in the British educational system, devised a plan to “re-package” Hinduism in a form that would be acceptable and even appreciated by the British academia. In this way, Hinduism could not only survive but regain ground in Bharata and even become appreciated at global level, creating a favourable international public opinion that would also have some influence in checking the cultural destruction perpetrated by the British colonial government in Bharata.
He was not the only one who had such an idea during the same historical period, but while others ventured into advaita philosophy (more fit for intellectuals) or social reformism (more fit for dedicated politicians), he chose the path of Bhakti to appeal to the hearts of the simple-minded masses. Which, in my opinion, was a great idea. Thus he proceeded to construct a sort of “Hindu Christianity”, presenting Chaitanya as the counterpart of the Jesus figure, and Krishna as the counterpart of the idea of the (Father) God in Christianity.
It was a very easy job, because already many groups in Bengal (the second family home of Kedarnath Datta, while his original village was in Orissa) worshiped Chaitanya as an avatar of Krsna and in fact not different from Krsna himself, after the scholarly descriptions of Chaitanya Caritamrta (written by Krsnadas Kaviraj, a later disciple of Rupa and Raghunath, two direct followers of Chaitanya). Krsnadasa Kaviraja could then be considered a sort of “later evangelist” of Chaitanya much like Mark and Luke in Christianity.
The Gaudiya math even openly used (and still uses) many Christian expressions, such as the “gospel” of Chaitanya and put a strong emphasis on the fact that Chaitanya tanya made no caste or religion discrimination among his followers, focused entirely on aikantika bhakti to a Supreme Dominating Male, etc.
However, it is extremely important to notice that neither Krishnadasa Kaviraja nor Bhaktivinoda or his son and successor Bhaktisiddhanta or his disciple Bhaktivedanta (the founder of ISKCON in USA) ever expressed, taught or intended to support the church-like offensive, denigratory or aggressive opinions, unethical policies and hypocritical stands that ISKCON unfortunately developed since the disappearance of its founder, Bhaktivedanta Swami. That would be the handiwork of a person who could be considered somewhat like the counterpart of Paul in Christianity: Tamal Krsna, who was also the mastermind of the unauthorised changes in the books and teachings of Bhaktivedanta Swami to suit his political purposes.
It is extremely important to understand that Bhaktivedanta Swami, Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivinoda never wanted to create an “ISKCON cult” where the Institution existed only to support its own existence and attacked all others, especially genuine Hinduism.
Agreed, some unfortunate expressions were used (“demigods”, etc) but that was according to the specific strategy of propitiating Christians, and largely because of a limited knowledge of the English language and western culture (filtered through the Indian educational system). But all the three of them saw that particular “abrahamic” presentation of Vaishnavism as a specific strategy required by desa, kala, patra (place, time and audience), to create a strong first footing from which they would continue to expand the genuine teaching of sanatana dharma.
We can find this idea expressed very clearly in the famous Bhagavata lecture given by Bhaktivinoda in 1869, in many passages written by Bhaktisiddhanta (who had also established a large library with many “dharma shastras”) and in many conversations and lectures by Bhaktivedanta. All three of them often quoted the famous verse written by Rupa Gosvami in his Bhakti rasamrta sindhu (1.2.101): sruti smrti puranadi pancaratra vidhim vina, aikantiki harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate.
Now, it was left to the sincerity and punya of each student to find out what sruti and smrti contained and taught to avoid becoming followers of ”a useless fantasy that could only cause disturbance and damage to society”, and learning Sanskrit was an important part of the process. Precisely for that reason, Bhaktivedanta’s translations and commentaries included the original devanagari text, transliteration, word-to-word translation and literary translation, and all disciples were required to chant slokas and mantras in Sanskrit rather than in a “local vernacular” version.
However, it is a fact that the particular flavor and emphasis of their preaching was due to the urgent need to preach to Christians and to those people who had been heavily influenced by Christian indoctrination (including Indians), and especially in a very peculiar historical period when India was under the British Christian domination.
Even Bhaktivedanta preached in a historical time (the late 1960s and 70s) when the Hindu movement was still very much still sleeping and Hindus in USA were mostly hiding like “Jews under the Nazi regime” or even distancing themselves from traditional “orthodox” Hinduism.
Kedarnath Datta, who had named his children Vimala Prasad and Biraja Prasad, could not elaborate much on Shiva tattva or Shakti tattva as they were impossible to reconcile with the Victorian Christianity.
Similarly, Bhaktivedanta also gave his disciples many names as “Umapati das” and “Mahamaya devi dasi”, even while remaining focused on a “monotheistic” Krsna worship in his preaching in the West. Bhaktivedanta had tried to develop Iskcon in Jhansi, India, before deciding to move to US, and had met with almost total lack of interest.
After about one year uselessly spent in trying to approach scholars and “respectable people” in US, Bhaktivedanta Swami saw the opportunity to preach to hippies and rebellious baby-boomers of an American generation that was definitely ready for a “change of consciousness” and for renunciation to the previous culture and mentality. As much as they were able to, that is. In fact the problem in “expanding the area of consciousness” is always with the subconscious beliefs that people are not recognising at the conscious level. Unqualified people may unwittingly stick a new label over an old mind pattern and delude themselves into believing that they are following a new set of mind patterns just because the label/name has changed.
Unfortunately, the process of confusion was compounded by the improper and non-authorised contact that some immature disciples of Bhaktivedanta Swami had with similarly unqualified disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta (shrapnel from the disintegration of the Gaudiya math on the disappearance of Bhaktisiddhanta) and from which they got several damaging ideas on “the genuine Indian/Vedic culture” such as birth (race and gender) prejudice, acceptance of unqualified authorities out of political/social motives, rationalisation of mistreatment of women, artificial sannyasa in pursuance of social fame power and profit, etc.
At this particular time in history, when we have already entered the 2010s, we need to realise that the situation has changed considerably, and that we also need to correct our course accordingly.
Today we do not need to appease and accommodate the abrahamic tendencies of our audience as there are no more British colonisers and we do not need the validation of mainstream academia any more. On the contrary, there are growing numbers of people who do not identify themselves as Christians any more, and in fact have rejected the Christian paradigms – for example the neo-pagans, wicca and new age people – due to several factors.
Besides, today the Hindu movement is well on its way, although much work remains to be done, and this is probably the single greatest historical fact that we need to focus on.
This is the time to go back to the source, to wash away the unnecessary superimpositions and rediscover the original teachings. For ISKCON and Gaudiya matha followers this means to rediscover a real Chaitanya who simply left a Sikshastaka (stating that “there are no hard and fast rules or ideology to be followed, just the loving chanting of the many Divine Names”), who honored the Oriya Vaisnavas (tantrics and yogis and not merely bhaktas), and a real Rupa Gosvami who worshiped a Deity of Durga.
It is time they rediscovered the truth about people like Jahnava Mata and read Chaitanya bhagavata (a more direct biography of Chaitanya written by a contemporary follower) for a change. In Chaitanya bhagavata, for example, there is a lengthy description of how Chaitanya exhibited the sentiments of Durga in the house of his main follower Advaita Acarya, and how Caitanya and his closest followers fell into a deep spiritual ecstasy by paying homage to Lingaraj in Bhubaneswar and a long line of other Shiva temples before arriving in Puri.
The declared purpose of the sankirtana movement is to encourage the masses of people to appreciate and glorify God, and become God conscious as per the instructions of Gita and Bhagavatam.
Only, we should not forget that without the support of dharma – starting with truthfulness – and without the proper knowledge, there is no possibility of genuine spiritual or religious realisation. Let the future development take us to the proper direction.
Mataji Parama Karuna Devi, the founder of the Jagannatha Vallabha Vedic Research Center, is a sannyasini, a writer, a teacher and a social worker. The author is a contributor to The Chakra and these are her personal views. You can view her profile here
Also See
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the The Chakra website and staff.
Chakra seems to be becoming an anti-hindu website day by day. First, Anti-Sikh and now anti-Iskon….when are you people releasing anti-rss, anti-aryasamj, anti-agniveer, anti-saibaba, anti-ravishankar, anti-ramdev etc articles? The motive and the quality of articles is going down every day…..shame on you guys, promoting anti-hindu, anti-India stuff under the banner of hinduism.
Joshi, Are you on drugs or you cant read because theres no anti hindu articles on chakra..
Thank you for such a truth talking article. There is so much covering up and parroting, cut and paste that goes on in the organization in the above article. Mataji you are closer to the truth, and you are for Hinduism, you are for Vaishnava, people need to learn to think, understand history and do research. Discernment is the key… Keep up your great work. Shame on anyone who does not allow opinions and voices of others, but then again Vaishnavism is about Love… so love them instead of shaming them. I don’t see you as being anti anything. Shaming, blastphemy, demi gods, are not a part of real Vaishnavism?? Jai Hinduism, Jai Vaishnavism, Jai India…
So beautifully expressed, Truth Talk. Articles like above by Mataji is what the beauty of hinduism is all about namely openness and seeking the truth even if one has to ask uncomfortable questions. People who champion hindu causes should not forget that in the first place.
To Joshi,
regards you comments,
“stuff” is bad english grammer
“you guys”,
also bad english grammer
That is the best article I have read in a while.
The Truth is something that dishonest people are afraid of.
She spews the usual fault-finding string of rascist materialistic suppositions from envy. Shame on this bogus so-called sannyasi. Her line is mere speculation and envious imagination from the Madame Blavatsky department, the same ones who bar non-caste “Hindus” from viewing Lord Jaggannatha.
“Articles like above by Mataji is what the beauty of hinduism is all about”
Are you kidding? Not so much beauty and lots of sand in this khir. Sounds like someone got some bad kitchari at the Sunday feast.
Some basic truths overlaid with zealous spin.
“Today we do not need to appease and accommodate the abrahamic tendencies of our audience as there are no more British colonisers and we do not need the validation of mainstream academia any more.” What a heavy load of sensationalistic dog poop.
I think this article was written in response to revelations on the ‘Bhaktivedanta investigation Force’ website. Specifically the article ORTHOPRAXY over ORTHODOXY. Exerpt: “Vedic scholars are in the throes of publicly declaring Sanskrit vernacular used by the cult to be a derivation of Vedic Sanskrit. In translation much has been omitted, but even more alarmingly, much has been added and enhanced to brainwash postulants and excite conversions. More than this we do not know at this point in time, other than to say the literature is under intense scrutiny for its translations, and for purports that are abusive to Government, Hindustan, Hinduism, Hindus, women, children, and recognized Hindu exemplars. Areas specifically dealing with the equation of teacher=guru=God, is being deemed a possible cause for horrendous abuse of children, exploitation of women, theft by deception, and the purloining of public coffers. Consternation sits heavy on the brow of all concerned. It is unanimously agreed and historically affirmed that only extreme cults follow this line of indoctrination. “
That is one nasty, nasty woman. I can just imagine the happy look on her face when she uncovers all mistakes and problems of a struggling, growing, and evolving spiritual organization of mostly sincere Western aspirants of a great and super human path of transcendence. Sounds like she takes great pleasure in throwing out the baby along with the bath water.
The URL for the Bhaktivedant Investigation Force is …
http://www.B-I-F.com
The specific URL for the above-mentioned article ORTHOPRAXY over ORTHODOXY is …
http://www.B-I-F.com/ORTHOPRAXY%20over%20ORTHODOXY.html
Thanks for your article. Yes, you are correct, Hindus are the main lifeline for the GBC gurus at this point, They get millions of dollars of donations from India’s industrialists, and big Hindu politicians are seen on huge stages giving lectures in support of these gurus.
So it seems the West has rejected these ISKCON gurus and they are retreating to India. There is a big lawsuit going on in the Indian Supreme court now and hopefully the courts will finally rule that these gurus are not authorized. As for Truth Seeker site above, they wrote me saying we need to surrender to all the Hindu scriptures (like Manu Samhita), I posted excepts from there on my blog to examine what some of those strictures are, such as red hot iron branding etc. I do not think these strictures would apply at present time. ys pd
Not a bad article for a sannyasini and a Hindu. “demigods” isn’t a misnomer, it is spoken by Lord Krsna Himself in the Bhagavad Gita, and Prabhupada wrote his books for the next ten thousand years, so things haven’t changed that much since then. Other than that, pretty good!
Truly orthodox Hindus believe for example in the Manu Samhita, which gives pretty severe statements about race and caste, does not allow even Hindu women to live in temples, has very austere if not violent treatments of criminals, and of course has the idea that Western people cannot even bother to become Krishna devotees due to mleccha birth, and so forth.
Clearly, the Vaishnava ideas work in the West, to allow women into temples, to give Westerners devotee status, to allow women to do pujari work, to allow women and Westerners to write philosophy articles, and so on, this is better for contemporary society especially the West. The orthodox Hindu idea that you have to be born into brahman class is also dying off, even in India. In other words, orthodox Hinduism is not working in the West very much because it does not even accept that Westerners can be devotees of Krishna, therefore mainly the Vaishnavas are spreading their ideas in the West because for starters, Westerners are not brahmana by birth, thus the only available route to Krishna is thus via vaishnavaism.
In other words, without Vaishnavism, barely any Westerners would have learned of the Vedas, Lord Siva, Lord Krishna etc. ys pd
Kill Bill
How can you say demigods isn’t a misnomer and that Krsna said it? He spoke Sanskrit and the word is devas. How does deva translate to demigod? The use of god, demigod all reinforces the Christian paradigm that Mataji speaks of.
Puranjana Prabhu, yes, that is why we are not Hindus but Vaishnavas. We do not believe in limitations of the body.
Udasi Prabhu, Devas is not a misnomer. It is Sanskrit and spoken by Krishna, that is fact. It means demigods, as opposed to Bhagavan which means the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Krsnas tu Bhagavan Swayam? But the majority of Hindus take offense at that idea. They seem to think all demigods are the same in that whichever one we worship is the same as worshiping Krishna, and even if we worship Krishna, Durga, Shiva or whomever ultimately we will realize Brahman after that.
So I stick with Prabhupada’s translation of devas as demigods. If it offends non-Vaishnavas then so be it, they are offending Lord Krishna when they say other demigods are Supreme instead of Him.
Shiva, Durga, Ganesh, Brahma, are all demigods! Only Vishnu and Krishna, Ramacandra, Balarama etc. are not!
Original verse quote:
sruti smriti puranadi pancaratri vidhim vina
aikantika harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate
Translation:
*If those ignorant and foolish offenders that waste time and energy unnecessarily speculating on the material attributes, activities or intentions of other people (who may be actual devotees because they are just stating SIMPLE AND TRUE HISTORICAL FACTS and quoting SCRIPTURES and genuine ACHARYAS)
*in the name of their own misconcepted fantasies of “unalloyed devotion”
* would actually do their real duty and READ THE SHASTRA (sruti, smriti, puranas, pancharatra etc),
* they would not be UNNECESSARY DISTURBANCES TO HUMAN SOCIETY.
Signed
SRI RUPA GOSVAMI
Forgive my simple mindedness, but is Mataji Parama Karuna Devi encouraging us to worship Durga devi? All glories to our Divine Ma, but such a suggestion does not seem congruent with the essence of Caitanya’s teachings. Perhaps I missed something?
I think it is important to differentiate between Gaudiya Vaishnavism, which has established ashrams and muttams in several parts of India, from ISKCON, which is a largely Western-developed movement. It is also important to recognize that in its originality, the movement was primarily a Vaishnava one, a monotheistic tradition that has strong footing and philosophically logical argument in South India among the Sri Vaishnavas. Their position is largely rooted in Vedanta, and has deep respect among academics.
It would appear that the modification of these ideas to accommodate Christian-ized post-British India was perhaps the start of the downfall of this faith in Bengal, its spreading to the US only exacerbating it further.
M Raghavan
Iskcon is not an offshoot of Hinduism. Not something Westernized. Iskcon is the real deal. Hindus are handy to have around. They come to the temple on Janamstami. They support the right to print the Bhagavad Gita in Russia. Some even still like cows. But ultimately they must all come to the level of Krishna Bhakti or they will have to take another birth.
Kill Bill
Evangelicals say that their’s is the real deal too. But, we know that Evangelical Christianity is an offshoot of American Protestantism, which in an offshoot of Lutheranism, which is an offshoot of Catholicism, which is an offshoot of Messianic Judaism, which is an offshoot of Judaism.
Look at some of the principles of ISKCON -
Krishna is the Supreme Being – an idea that is prevalent among almost all Vaishnava sects of Hinduism.
Bheda Abheda Achintya – the philosophy propogated by Yadavaprakasa, an 12th Century philosopher of South India.
Hare Krishna Maha Mantra – from the Kalisantarana Upanishad
The wearing of dhoti, sarees, tilak, all are borrowed from India. While it may not be Hindu, how can you conclude it is only way?
M Raghavan,
not exactly “only way”. But not all paths lead to the same goal. If one worships Jesus or Muhammad he will go to them, to serve God the way they do. There are higher realizations of the supreme, and lower ones. But it is the same God.
So until one comes to the state of at least worshiping Vishnu he is only worshiping a demigod, a devata, and not the Supreme Personality of Godhead. If one is attracted to worship of Rama, Nrsngha, Varaha, Kurma or some other form of Vishnu in the perfectional stage that is of course alright.
I think you need to make a more objective study of the world religions. Mohammed is the Prophet of Islam; no Muslim is to worship him. His message, the Quran, is to be followed.
As for Jesus, people pray to him as the Son of God, the intercessor, through whom we reach Him. Christians believe that if we believe in Jesus as the Savior, whose Divinity is proven through His death and resurrection, then we will be freed our sins and returned to God.
As far as Vaishnavism is concerned, we seek to be servants to the Supreme Being, we do not worship Him the way the worshipers of the demigods do, to secure some blessing. And not all schools make such a stark distinction among the various avatharas of Vishnu or try and categorize devotees as being in a state of perfection or not. All devotees of Vishnu are His because He specially chose them to be, awakening them to the wisdom that He is There for all, including the worshipers of demigods and those of other faiths, and that the entire Universe Under His Care. It is this that separates us from the other faiths.
Its the same old caste-consciousness; materialism disguised. Anyome who differentiates Vaisnavas based upon their bodily designation is an atheist. Any organizartions receiving funding from globalist corporations must be highly suspect of an agenda, such as the Bangalore devotees. The Globalist powers destroyed GBC Iskcon, and are continuing to drive in the wedge of divide and conquer, and this Hindu-isation program is just part and parcel of that Luciferian agenda. Hindus are new hodge-podge pop-culture kids on the block, devotees of Vishnu in our successions go back to eternity. Devotees born to serve in foreign countries are the ones most blessed by Krsna, as he uses them in even the most difficult places to preach directly on His Behalf. They are the strong and trusted servants. Srila Gour Govinda Swami wouldnt even enter Jagannatha Temple in Puri on account of the offensive mentality of making a discrimination between Vaisnavas based on skin color. All should follow this transcendental loving example.
The BIF site contains disgusting grave offenses and is an offense to all Vaisnavas. For example, I exchanged some private joking words once with the rascal Sakshi Gopal of that site on a crazy e-thread once, and he posted my jokes on the internet without asking me permission to do so, in a most offensive way, and even outright lied and changed the words to suit his purposes. This is one small example. Others have expressessd similar abuses, such as Radha Govinda Swami. These people are duplicitous cheating caste-conscious offenders, and all who visit there will surely fall down severely.
Puranjana is a faultfinder par excellence. Anything he says is also corrupt and tailored to suit his political hard-ritivk corporations-supporting agenda.
Best for all to follow Srila Prabhupada and avoid these types of sahajiyas.
A nice disussion without abuses.
IMO, just because of a few extremists the whole community cannot be defamed especially if the scriptures on which that community does not propogate those views. Just like because of a few superstitious and extremist Hindus, the entire Hinduism cannot be generalised, similarly Iskon cannot be generalised either.
In all the upanishads and Vedas, those elements which uphold the human survival are called as “devas”. Even Maya (chapter 7) as devi and the senses are called devas and the mind as ruler of those five senses. This has been often equated to Indra and by conquering Indra one can free himself from the three modes of material nature. (Gita chapter 7).
Therefore, I agree with @Udasi here. Krishna never spoke of the word “demigods” but “deva” which has been translated by the humans according to their mental conditioning and education i.e terminology used to identify and differentiate. But just like dharma cannot be translated to religion, aastik cannot be translated to atheist, deva cannot be translated as a demigod (please refer rigvedic hymn of creation for further understanding).
IMO, this mistake has been done by many other people who translated dharma as religion and gave terms like “Vedic religion” which is an oxymoron!
@Kill Bill : I personally, do not favour Prabhupada’s translations as a student of sanskrit myself. The reasons being, that he has given a translation of Gita which have abrahamic mix in their nature with attachment to name “Krishna”, whereas the actual sanskrit verses do not say the same thing and teach detachment.
e.g
BG 8.7: Therefore, Arjuna, you should always think of Me in the form of K???a and at the same time carry out your prescribed duty of fighting. With your activities dedicated to Me and your mind and intelligence fixed on Me, you will attain Me without doubt.
The above is a verse translated by Prabhupada. Please tell me where in the sanskrit verse is the name “Krsna” mentioned and further where it saying the “form of krsna”. Thus, this inclusions is made by Prabhupada which distorts the understanding of Gita.
Read prabhupada : http://vedabase.net/bg/8/7/en
Neither the actual sanskrit is mentioning the name Krishna, chanting of the hari krishna mantra nor KrishnaLoka which has been coined by Prabhupada. Thus, obviously to the readers who do not know sanskrit, the above purport as stated in the link, Krishna will look as an egotist.
There are various other translations that I can expose that are incorrectly translated and the purports in prabhupada’s sites which have reduced Krishna to a level of “politician”. IMO, politics is a derogatory term to associate with Krishna and his leela.
Please tell me out all the 18 chapters, in which verse Krishna has explicitly stated to worship a name called Krishna, hare krishna mantra or something called krishnalok? (or his other names?).
Please refer 9.22, 9.23, 7.21-25, 9.11, 10.21, 10.23, 10.30, 10.33.
Therefore devas are the different manifestations of the ultimate truth that an avatar like Krishna has expounded in the terms of “I and Me”. The same can be found in other Upanishads in terms of “it, this and that”.
Moreover, please refer 6.36, 13.3, 18.6, 18.63, 18.78, the verses themselves do not force anything on anyone. And IMO, it is the highest form of objectivty and tolerance where a person (Lord Krishna here) says something and concludes it as his “opinion” and then tells the other to do as he wishes to do. Those who think Krishna was forcing Arjun obviously have read between the lines and missed these verses!
*Correcton : *aastik cannot be translated as theist.*
Girdhar,
when Krishna said “Mam”, unto Me, Arjuna knew he was speaking of Himself in the form of Krishna. All devotees coming in the disciplic succession from Lord Krishna also know this. But because so many people do not it was included by Prabhupada so people would understand that when Krishna says surrender unto Me, he really means unto Him, Lord Krishna, and not a manifestation of some kind of ulitmate truth other than Krishna.
M Raghavan,
I stand corrected. Muslims, or followers of Islam, do not worship Muhammad. I was trying to point out though there due to the many different expansions of the Godhead there are seemingly different destinations in a way. Although even there I may be making a mistake. It is an offense to say one incarnation of Vishnu is better than another.
Tamohara,
everything you said just now looks pretty accurate to me.
@Kill Bill : Please read
“I am the father of this universe, the mother, the grandfather, the progenitor, the essence to be known, the purifying transcendental sound vibration Om; also the the Rig Veda, the Sama Veda and the Yajur Veda.” (BG 9.17)
When he said “Mam”, you need to understand what it means. Does it mean some name called “Krishna” or an underlying reality that devoid of any form? Similarly, the self or I is to be known without any ego or attachment that Gita teaches. When meditating a person frees himself from all kinds of “bondages or attachments”, or associations with names and hence by whatever name that reality is called, it is that essence “Mam” which is to be known.
Thus, this whole manifestation from the unmanifest is again a leela where the demigods are also his principle aspects as well as the prakriti/maya which is also called as a devi n chapter 7.
Of the twelve Adityas I am Visnu, of all luminaries the radiant sun, of the seven Maruts I am Marici and of the constellations I am the moon. (10.21)
Of the eleven Rudras I am Siva and of Yaksas and Raksasas I am Kuvera the treasurer of the demigods, of the eight Vasus I am Agni the fire god and of mountains Meru (10.23)
Of letters I am the first letter A, and of compound words the dual word, I am eternal ever flowing time and the four-faced Brahma. (10.33)
Therefore if you say, a name called Krishna is above all, then
1. You are showing an attachment to a name without understanding the underlying aspect which is contrary to the teaching of Gita.
2. If you think Brahma and Shiva are lesser, then there is mix of abrahamic conception into your reasoning because the upanishads including the Gitopanishad treat as the levels of consciousness and the levels of manifestations.
Lastly, if you still believe in what you said then, please read
Fools deride me in My divine human form, unable to comprehend My supreme nature as the Ultimate Controller of all living entities. (BG 9.11)
Therefore, if you still assume a name is important, then you are
1. Ignoring Other names include ajanma meaning “unborn”. Why chant Krishna only, when you can chant “ajanma” also?
2. Reducing Gita to the level of an abrahmic text.
3. Denying the verses or opining contrary to what Gita states
4. Reducing the supreme truth which unborn, unmanifested, immutable, inconcievable, omnipresent etc ( which all the upanishads and Veda teach) to a definite form, name etc.
So including an aspect which is contrary to the teaching of Gita and not included in it, IMO, is unwise and distorts the whole understanding of Gita.
My question is still open : In all 18 chapters, where in sanskrit verses, is it mentioned to worship a name called “Krishna, chant hare krishna mantra, or a mention of KrsnaLok”?
There is a difference between “mam” and “attachment to name Krishna”. A sage will never differentiate by what name his loving devotees call him. A thousand devotees may call him by thousand different names as per their devotion. But he will obviously will yield to their devotion for knowledge.
If you really want to know what that “mam” is, you need to read the whole Gita or atleast chapters 7 and 10 for a glimpse. Please read Bhagvada Gita translated by Sri Aurobindo or from bhagvad-gita.org and contemplate it yourself instead of reading secondary interpretations. If you are sanskrit student it will be much better.
@ kill bill, We dont need lectures from people like you who just picked up a few iskcon books thinking they understand hundreds of thousands of years of hindu tradition.Most Vaishnavas dont even class Iskcon as vaishnavas but as a cult so you dont even have the right to speak on them let alone on Krishna..If you are going to challenge us hindus on that then be ready to go back to being down and out tramping on some backstreet alley..
@Kill bill: For many Vaishnavas, the destination is not quite as important as the journey. Awakened to the idea that the Supreme Being is the Source of this Universe, that He is very kind, and that all beings are eternally connected to Him, the best that we can pray for is to be of service to the world around us. Such service need not be preaching about Him or engaging in formal organizations; it is being someone that others can trust and turn to. This is called bhAgavatha kainkaryam in Vaishnavism, and it is immortalized in Gandhiji’s favorite song “Vaishnava Janato”.
@Jiva Goswami , You must have been another tramp lost in some new your backstreet alleyway who was given some prashad by other iskcon devotees then read a few iskcon books but now think you are an a Goswami and an expert on Krishna..If you cant dispute the facts written in this article then plainly just go back to being a zombfied tramp like IskCon now produces. It us Hindus who decide what our religious traditions are and not to losers like yourself ..
@Arjun: I see no need for reacting so emotionally. Let us simply present our logical position. It will argue for itself.
@Mataji Parama Karuna Devi, This an excellent article and well written showing the facts but it seems some people in dhotis and shaven heads should watch Dawn of the Dead by director George A. Romero where theres a zombie HK walking around to know what they are themselves lol
@M Raghavan , Ive been debating these nutcases for years so i dont have anytime to discuss advanced hindu spiritual concepts with people who are stuck in abhrahamic monotheist templates and cant think for themselves.And if they think that they have the monopoly over Krishna and the Hindus dont then they are in for more ridicule
Understood. I wish you luck.
Tamohara, there is no doubt the reason you’re still howling is because you were EXPOSED something shocking on http://www.B-I-F.com/Killzone.html
And it was YOU who starred as that zombie in Dawn of the Dead by director George A. Romero, wasn’t it! So please just give us all a break until you take birth again without the shroud of the cloak of cult-dom.
In the meantime, kindly continue reading http://www.B-I-F.com.
Dear Acyutananda….
Vrindavan Dasa writes in the Chaitanya Bhagavata the prayer spoken by Sri Chaitanya on the occasion of the dancing drama performance at the house of Chandrasekhara:
“All glories to the universal Mother, Mahamaya Devi. Kindly give the shelter of your lotus feet to the wretched conditioned souls who suffer in this material world. You are the controlling power of the entire material universe and you appear in every yuga to uphold the principles of religion. Even Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are unable to fully describe your unlimited powers, what to speak of ordinary people. You are faith, compassion, modesty, and the personification of pure devotion to Lord Vishnu, Krishna, so all branches of knowledge are your manifestations. The Vedas describe you as the original energy, and you appear to be within this material nature consisting of the three gunas but you are actually their cause, and you are always situated in a transcendental position. You are the eternal, unchanging, supreme energy, the shelter and resting place of all living entities, the universal Mother who sustains everyone, matchless and unrivalled. You are the life sustaining water, and by remembering you one can easily cut the bonds of material illusion. You appear also as Mother Lakshmi, the eternal consort of Lord Narayana, in the homes of the dharmic people, but to the sinful offender you manifest as the all-devouring death. You are the creator of the universe and those who ignore you, not offering you worship, are punished by the threefold miseries. To the devotees you inspire pure faith, and therefore please give us shelter in the shade of your lotus feet. Your illusory potency keeps the entire creation enthralled, so if you do not protect me, who will? Your appearance in the material world is to deliver the conditioned souls, and by remembering you one attains all perfection. O Mother, we are all surrendered to you, kindly look upon us with benevolence, so that we may remain with a fixed mind at your lotus feet.”
Sri Rupa Gosvami had a Deity of Mother Durga and worshiped her regularly.
In his famous commentary on Brahma samhita, Jiva Gosvami uses the Gautamiya tantra to identify Radha with Durga: “Krsna is Durga. Durga is Krsna. One who sees that they are different will not become liberated from the cycle of repeated birth and death.”
He further says: “Durga is the personal potency of Lord Krsna, and therefore she is Lord Krsna Himself. For this reason Durga should not be considered manifested from a portion of the Lord’s illusory potency Maya.”
1000 names of Srimati Radha Rani include the following:
1. Ambika, 2. Durga, 3. Janaki, 4. Laksmi, 5. Lalita, 6. Maha-laksmi, 7. Maha-visnu-priya, 8. Parvati, 9. Rohini, 10. Rukmini, 11. Sarada, 12. Sarasvati, 13. Sarva-mangala, 14. Sati, 15. Sita, 16. Siva, 17. Siva-bhakta, 18. Siva-brahma-hari-priya, 19. Siva-kroda, 20. Siva-prana, 21. Siva-sakti-svarupa, 22. Vindhyacala-nivasini, 23. Visakha, 24. Vrnda, 25. Yamuna, 26. Yasoda, 27. Brahma-patni, 28. Dvaraka-vasini, 29. Hara,
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada gave names of Devas and Devis to several of his disciples, too.
Either you follow the previous acharyas, or you don’t. If you don’t, you have no right to claim any authority on the basis of the authority of the previous acharyas.
Regarding the “essence of Caitanya’s teachings”, I understand that the expression refers to the unalloyed exclusive devotion to Hari, and specifically to the contemplation of Krishna in Vrindavana, on the example of the gopis who were not even interested in Narayana but only in their beloved Syamasundara. I have no problem with that.
When a devotee is so deeply immersed in contemplating Syamasundara Krishna that s/he has no attention left for anything else, there is no harm in “neglecting” to “worship” the other Personalities of Godhead. However, one should ask why s/he is becoming distracted from such pure unalloyed deep and constant meditation to the effect of investigating what (genuine) Personalities of Godhead are worshiped by other people, and even to try to discourage such people from worshiping them (in open violation of Bhagavad gita’s orders) and with the disastrous result of committing offenses against genuine Personalities of Godhead and genuine dharmic people (something so absurd that it did not even deserve mentioning in Bhagavad gita).
Regarding the concept of “worship”, I believe it also needs a good brushing in order to remove the abrahamic misconceptions that many people attach to it.
In Vedic terms, “worship” is the expression of respect and love, and is normally offered to all those who are considered worthy of respect and love – the Guru, the Cow, the Parents, the Guests, the Devas, the Prasadam etc.
Acyutananda wrote….
December 29, 2011 at 1:00 am
Forgive my simple mindedness, but is Mataji Parama Karuna Devi encouraging us to worship Durga devi? All glories to our Divine Ma, but such a suggestion does not seem congruent with the essence of Caitanya’s teachings. Perhaps I missed something?
In case Puranjana is still around….
I don’t know which Manu samhita you have been reading, and what kind of “truly orthodox Hindus” you have met.
Genuine Vedic scriptures (on which a truly orthodox hindu is supposed to build his/her understanding and realizations) all concur on the point that varnas are determined by guna and karma and not by birth. So much that – by birth alone – Vedavyasa was the illegitimate son of a fisher-woman, Valmiki was a chandala who lived by robbing travelers and hunting innocent harmless animals, Satyakama Jabala was the illegitimate son of a sudra girl, and so on.
Regarding “allowing women to live in temples”: I think you are confusing the concept of “temple” with the concept of “ashrama”.
According to the Vedic system nobody is allowed to live in temples. The pujaris and the devotees live near or “attached to” the temple and go there regularly for their service, and in the night when service is completed, the doors of the temple are sealed and the guards stand outside the doors.
On the other hand, in the shastras we find a lot of descriptions of the ashramas of Rishis where there are plenty of women – the wives of the Rishis or Rishi patnis, as well as the female Rishis or Rishikas, the daughters of the Rishis (such as Sakuntala etc) and even guest women as for example Sita (guest of Valmiki), and Prahlada’s mother (guest of Narada).
What is not prescribed in the Vedic scriptures is SANNYASIS living in ashramas. The orthodox rules of sannyasa are very strict and forbid any regular association or fixed residence; of course Adi Shankara changed all that and Bhaktisiddhanta simply followed. If we want to go deeper to the root of the issue, we could also say that in Kali yuga there should be no sannyasa (according to Chaitanya’s instruction).
Regarding women doing pujari service, the genuine scriptures are full of examples of women doing puja and performing homa. I don’t know who started this nonsensical idea that women cannot do puja, but it is certainly due to ignorance and neglect of the shastra, even those shastra specifically written for the Kali yuga retards – Itihasa and Puranas.
Regarding the “punishments” for criminals, the kshatriyas are only allowed to stop aggressors by applying the required force. As soon as the aggressor surrenders, he cannot be punished in any way. The imaginative torture sentences that are sometimes circulated as “the laws of Manu” were actually generated by the fertile brains of abrahamic compilators of “Indology text books”, whose declared aim was to destroy Sanatana Dharma. There can be no dharmic scripture that goes AGAINST the fundamental principles of Dharma – truthfulness, compassion, cleanliness and self restraint. To make a comparison example, if someone paints a portrait of Krishna smoking cigarettes and dressed like Michael Jackson, you are entitled to question the authenticity of the image and the motivation of the painter.
Nobody is brahmana by birth. If any Indian racist casteist idiot tells you such a piece of **, you should quote the avalanche of opposite evidence from the real Traditional shastra and genuine Traditional authorities. There is no scope in posting such evidence here, but I will certainly be happy to send files by email to all those who wish to get the proper “information weaponry” in the dharmic yuddha.
puranjana dasa wrote….
December 18, 2011 at 5:24 am
Truly orthodox Hindus believe for example in the Manu Samhita, which gives pretty severe statements about race and caste, does not allow even Hindu women to live in temples, has very austere if not violent treatments of criminals, and of course has the idea that Western people cannot even bother to become Krishna devotees due to mleccha birth, and so forth.
Clearly, the Vaishnava ideas work in the West, to allow women into temples, to give Westerners devotee status, to allow women to do pujari work, to allow women and Westerners to write philosophy articles, and so on, this is better for contemporary society especially the West. The orthodox Hindu idea that you have to be born into brahman class is also dying off, even in India. In other words, orthodox Hinduism is not working in the West very much because it does not even accept that Westerners can be devotees of Krishna, therefore mainly the Vaishnavas are spreading their ideas in the West because for starters, Westerners are not brahmana by birth, thus the only available route to Krishna is thus via vaishnavaism.
In other words, without Vaishnavism, barely any Westerners would have learned of the Vedas, Lord Siva, Lord Krishna etc. ys pd
Puranjana Dasa
I feel rather saddened at the fact that readers identify Vaishnavism as being the sole property of ISKCON. It is clear to me that ISKCON is clearly a Western interpretation of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, and is largely rooted in the Bhagavatha Puranam.
Please note, however, that there are Vaishnava schools in India that are firmly rooted in Vaidikam. While these schools do not see caste or birth as being a condition for serving the Supreme Being, they do differentiate the duties and rights of the various castes. The rituals are rooted in the Agamas, which are clear in stating that only Brahmin males, invested with both the yagnopavitham and initiated through panchasamskaram can perform aradhanam (pooja is a very generic term) to the archa vigraham and the salagramam.
The philosophy of the Vaidika Vaishnava school established by Ramanuja is based on Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads, and Bodhayana Vritthi, which are the pramanams for all sad-darshanas. From my study and observation, there has been no effort on the part of the ISKCON Acharyas, past or present, to defend their position based on these three vital pramanams.
So, if any sort of Vaishnavism is meant for Westerners, it can only be ISKCON.
To all you Hindu Schmindus out there who don’t like ISKCON, when you compare Iskcon devotees to zombies on Dawn of the Dead you are committing a great vaishnava aparadha. You are showing how much you are on the bodily concept. You think you are your Hindu bodies well I would rather be a zombie than such a puffed up foolish hindu which by the way is NOT a Sanskrit word for all you big huge Sanskrit scholars out there and if you think you know so much Sanskrit why don’t you prove it by lighting the sacrificial fire by mantra, that is what happens if you chant the mantras purely which you don’t.
@Kill Bill, what you complaining about when you can even by a dawn of the dead hare krishna zombie toy from the following link lol
http://www.dotd.dannyduchesneau.com/images/item_images/game_toy/us_action%20figure-hare%20krishna%20zombie_neca-cult%20classics%206_34482%2061104.jpg
kill bill, we’re not Hindu Schmindus, we’re ex-ISKCULT who’ve awoken from the zombie-like coma.
“Vigilant”, Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and Srila Prabhupada is His authorized representative. If you think I am in a coma for believing that then I feel sorry for you.
kill bill, you’re welcome to believe whatever you want to believe. Better luck next life.
@kill bill – I always find myself at a loss to understand why ISKCON considers itself as the sole authority as Vaishnavism, and Srila Prabhupada as its sole representative. ISKCON is just one among several schools of Vaishnava thought. The Vallabhas and the Swamy Narayana sishyas are also exclusive worshipers of Krishna, and they have their own set of respected Acharyas. The Ramanuja Vaishnavas, rooted in the theology of the Alwars, also recognize Krishna as being preeminent. The arguments against ISKCON that have been raised in this article may raise some valid schools. But there is no doubt that the Gaudiya Vaishnavas hold a respected – but not exclusive – position among followers of the Vaishnava sect.
M. Raghavan,
Here is why Iskcon considers itself as it does. When a newcomer arrives at a temple, like myself when I joined for instance, they are told Lord Caitanya is Krishna Himself, and whoever does not believe this and fails to worship Him in Kali Yuga will not see another human birth for thousands of kalpas.
We are also told that since the time of Lord Caitanya many psuedo cults have manifested, bogus groups. Only Iskcon is to be trusted because we have a bona fide disciplic succession coming from Lord Caitanya down through Bhaktivinode Thakura, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada etc.
Even the Gaudiya Math cannot be trusted since they were composed of neophytes who were envious of Srila Prabhupada and fought over temples against the order of their guru, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, and they tried to make themselves sole proprietors of their guru’s establishment after he left the planet against his wishes as well.
So we only trust Iskcon and also since so many disciples of Prabhupada who became “gurus” on paper fell down also, now it is hard to even trust them. But we all trust Prabhupada and Lord Krishna. If not, then we leave. But most devotees who leave do believe in Lord Krishna and Srila Prabhupada, they usually leave because they either don’t like how the movement has been hijacked by unbonafide “gurus”, or else we leave because we cannot control our senses, or we leave because the authorities in charge of us are simply exploiting us and we just can’t take it anymore, because they refuse to get us married when we need to in order to be safely engaged in Krishna’s service or some other reasons.
@kill bill
Simply because there are pseudo-gurus in this age does not mean you must denounce all other Vaishnava schools. It takes many, many lifetimes to enter a body suitable for service to the Supreme Being. While I agree that utmost respect should be given to your Acharya and its lineage, one must not do this in putting down others. There is a much greater sin than not believing in Lord Chaitanya. It is insulting another devotee of God. Prahlad lived thousands of years before Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, but look at what happened when his father denounced him.
All you have spoken about is the goods and bads of ISKCON devotees and what you call “un-bonafide” gurus. In Ramanuja tradition, we have far more Acharyas than ISKCON does. Yet, none of us have left our faith. This is because not a one of our Acharyas – over a span of 1500 years – has been un-bonafide. Perhaps, ISKCON could open its closed doors so that it can learn something from others.
M Raghavan, you’re a gentleman & a scholar. Thankyou.
ISKCON devotees are supposed to be gentlemen & scholars, also.
Too bad it didn’t happen.
Your comment …
“ISKCON could open its closed doors so that it can learn something from others”
will fall on ears programmed to dismiss it with a contemptuous wave of the hand.
One time Prabhupada was asked why some of his men seemed to be so fanatical. He replied to the lady that they were only trying to separate themselves from maya.
We are told that this is somewhat healthy in the beginning, but we should of course mature past this stage in time. So according to Prabhupada we should not dismiss things so contemptuously as you have said Mr. Vigilant, you are such a gentleman and scholar.
It is interesting to observe the concern for maya that ISKCON has; it is obviously the influence of bheda-abheda achintya vedanta. Madhvacharya actually argued against the concept in dvaita.