Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Hare krishna's are not hindu

they don't consider themselves Hindu, and most hindu's don't either. Example (talk · contribs) 21:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's not quite true. Take a look at the "Hare Krishna and Hinduism" section of this ISCON UK page. [1]. It says they are both part of Hinduism and a separate religion. --LeeHunter 14:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, I acknowledge that there are some contridictory statements made, but for the sake of neutrality we must remain impartial. For this reason I have removed statements promoting one view or the other. However this issue is certain to resurface, and I feel the weight of the evidence is on my side (just look at the external links section). Cheers, Example (talk · contribs) 15:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The thing is, that Hinduism lacks a universally accepted definition. According to one common definition, Hindus accept the Vedas as the supreme scriptural authority, while ISKCON reveres the Bhagavad Gita as the supreme scriptural authority. That would technically make ISKCON a splinter group, though it is certainly more widely considered a Hindu sect. Mkweise 20:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Mkweise. I don't think there is a definition of Hinduism that can encompass all of what is commonly understand as Hinduism in India that would also exclude ISCKON. It claims to be promoting Sanatana Dharma, a key concept of Hinduism. There is certainly a degree of sectarianism (and the usual "we're right, everybody else is wrong" ideology that goes along with [[[The true believer: thoughts on the nature of mass movements|True Believers]]). But ISKCON is clearly associated with Hinduism. In a way it is a sort of extreme Hindu fundamentalism--God's Word, the Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, are taken to be literally true (despite requiring the intermediation of a so-called guru, many of which in ISKCON have had a poor track record in maintaining their own vows). older≠wiser 21:19, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
If one accepts the Hinduism article as accurate, it would be difficult to argue that Hare Krishna's are not part of the mix. The issue of whether Vishnu is an expression of Krishna or vice versa is a pretty esoteric point. Same with putting emphasis on one scripture over another. It's not really enough to disqualify you from Hinduism. Look at Christianity, which is not nearly as open-ended. Some folks believe in the divinity of Mary and some don't. Some think the Old Testament is unimportant and some think it is. Some jump up and down and roll on the ground and some sit quietly in their pews. And some Christians belong to tiny groups that fit the definition of cults. It doesn't mean that they're not still Christian. I also have my doubts about the claim that the 'majority' of Hindus believe that ISCON are not part of Hinduism. I could see that in certain quarters, some Hindus might think so, but I suspect that the majority of the 900 million don't really have an opinion one way or the other. --LeeHunter 23:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Alot of what you have said is likely true, but our position here is catalog information, the POV's of experts, not to quest for objective reality, or present our own POV's, however legitimate. The experts are divided on this one, much as they are about Mormonism (which considers itself jewish, I believe) and Jehovas witnesses (who think they are the only Christians, excluding other denominations) being Christian, regardless of consistancy with the wiki article on Christianity. Example (talk · contribs) 23:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
First I would like to add that ISKCON devotees are devoted to a large scope of Vedic literature, and literature in pursuit of the vedas. This range includes the Vedas, Brahmanas, Upanishads, Epics, Puranas, and various vernacular scriptures in English and Bengali. Given this, it is fair to note that they place a higher emphasis on scriptures such as the Bhagavad-Gita, Bhagavata Purana and the Caitanya Charitamrta. This scriptural tradition offers a solid link connecting ISKCON to other various "Hindu" denominations, whether that connection is acknowledged or not. Given this, it should be noted that the term "Hindu" is a recent phenomenon given the long history of the literary tradition. JCM 5/24/05
Had to add a note here. ISKCON reveres all of the Vedas, not just the Bhagavad Gita. We particularly study the Srimad Bhagavatam as well as other scriptures and have members actively translating additional texts at present. --ISKCON member 12/1/05

The definition of "Hinduism" has been used for the past few hundred years to describe the religions of South Asian that pay homage to one or more of the various traditions in pursuit of vedic literature and vedic tradition. In the attempt to catalog information, we have to recognize the limitations of these words and catagories. It is not unrealistic that ISKCON devotees could both identify as "Hindu" while also recognizing the limitations of that catagorization, and adding additional catagories to a complex personal identity. Many South Asian traditions use the term "Sanatana Dharma" which roughly translates to "eternal religion." This term acknowledges that the religious traditions now identifying as Hindu, did in fact exist long before the term "Hindu" was introduced as an historical evolution (albiet one that isn't easily dated).

The Caitanya Charitamrta (a Gaudiya Vaishnava hagiography on Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu) is one of the first "Hindu" scriptures to reference the word "Hindu." This scripture was constructed towards the end of the 15th century in Bengal, where Hindus identified their religious tradition in the context of a society ruled by a Muslem establishment. This date of 1500 BCE leaves the vast majority of Gaudiya Vaishnava literary tradition (from the Rig Veda circa 1500 BCE to the Caitanya Charitamrta circa 1500 CE) as predating "Hindu" identification.

The above sequence places the complex identity issue of Gaudiya-Vaishnava/Hindu/Sanatana-Dharma into its larger and more complex historical context.

My point is that these terms should never be so oversimplified as to allude to an either/or identity. JCM 5/24/05

I'd like to contribute to this discussion with the fact that Prabhupada often overtly denied any connection to Hinduism at all: 'The Krsna consciousness movement has nothing to do with the Hindu religion or any system of religion' (The Science of Self-realization, chapter 3). Another time he wrote: 'One should clearly understand that the Krsna consciousness movement is not preaching the so-called Hindu religion.' He could be even stronger in his judgement of Hinduism, calling it 'a dead religion' with 'no philosophy' (72-02-04.VAI) or 'a cheating religion' (731006BG.BOM). The last to references refer to Folio database 'The Complete Works of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada' (n.d.) and the Folio database 'The pre-1965 works of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada', Version 1.0, March 1995. PietjePrecies 15:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Book Pollution?

(Sorry - that's just an attention grabber) How about adding some statistics on the number of books published by the movement? There must be some truly remarkable (if not staggering) figures out there that may be of interest. I envision a graph with years on the X axis and thousands (or millions?) of books published on the Y axis...

User 66

The edit by user 66._._..... was partly helpful and partly vandalism. If someone has the time his edits should be checked for factual accuracy. freestylefrappe 20:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

I hope I did the right thing by posting a Copy Viol notice. At least one section is lifted from [2] (and other sites) verbatim. Paul, in Saudi 28 June 2005 13:15 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. However that site is a mirror of Wikipedia, presumably using the material properly (see the fine print at the bottom of the page). Cheers, -Willmcw June 28, 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Previous Version

I would like the person that reversed the revisions in the previous version to explain why they did so, because the changes were NPOV not POV. In fact this version that it was changed to is POV. When both the versions are compared you will see that the changes refer to the following:

1) Prabhupada's death is physical-only and not spiritual. My version pointed this. Thus my version puts forward a view that the challenger did not like. It is a question of whether the vision should become limited or not. A limited vision is POV not NPOV.

2) The new version mentioned that the eleven chosen disciples were given the task of being instructing and NOT initiating gurus.

3) Other groups that follow the ritvik method of initiations were mentioned.

4) The website sources were linked.

5) The new version tells facts and new views as is thus a NPOV however the version we have now is POV because it ignores the new views and their websites sources.

6) The book changes to Prabhupada's books were mentioned and sources for the originals.

--Volunteer 00:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Physical death as opposed to Spiritual

I have added the word "physical" in context of death because it is important to clarify for anyone wanting to understand. If we do not put the word "physical" preceding the word "death" or in context elsewhere than this would become POV. We have to put the other view also so that is NPOV and a compromise is through inserting the word "physical."

--Volunteer 11:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

What the article can say in accordance with NPOV is that some Hare Krishnas believe that Swami's death was merely physical. I will change the article to reflect this later today. Your changes are not in accordance with NPOV, since the overwhelming majority of people in the world believe that Swami's death was total. --goethean ॐ 14:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps using the word "Passing" or "passing on" may be a neutral phrase that both sides can appreciate. Siyavash 11:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


Please understand through this example that in this context could sound weird but is needed so we can develop understanding - a heavily conditioned "meat-eater" will disagree with a "vegetarian" however if the "meat-eater" always puts their meat eating on Wikipedia and deletes "vegetarian" points then this would become POV. Every "meat-eater" input should also have the "vegetarian" points - then there will not be any bias. The "physical" and "spiritual" wording clarifies the meaning. Goethean has shown some flexibility and to implement this the changes should not be put only on a sentence but wherever there is mention of the "death" word, the word "physical" should be put. There are several mentions of the "death" word, including a heading. I hope Goethean understands this and will allow me to make the necessary changes.
--Volunteer 19:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Er, no. I thnk Goethean has it phrased just about right. Wikipedia can certainly present the POV of those who subscribe to a belief system with no objective verifiability. But those beliefs should be clearly identified as such and not presented as simple "truth". There is little need to unecessarily insert awkward qualifying phrases throughout. older≠wiser 19:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the Brahman, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva issue

A commentator had, I believe, meant to mention the names of the trinity, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, and instead mistakenly used the phonetically similar word Brahman. As noted by another commentator, Brahman is an impersonal aspect of the Supreme Lord, God, and this is taught within the precepts of ISKCON. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are, according to the Srimad Bhagavatam, the creator, maintainer, and destroyer of the universe, respectively. They exist as a "trinity" and although Vishnu, the maintainer of the universe, is a plenary expansion of God, Brahma, and Shiva are demigods, strictly subordinate servitors to God in their positions for the creation and destruction of this universe. And, though Brahma creates the different forms of life after Vishnu creates the actual universe, these forms of life are then impregnated with their souls through an expansion Vishnu, not Brahma. Still, Vishnu is somewhat different from Krishna according to the scriptures provided by Srila Prabhupada. Although eternal, Vishnu exists for the creation and maintainance of the material world. All of the avatars of God, including those which incarnate (i.e., are "born") for a particular purpose, do originate from the body of Vishnu. However, ISKCON members believe that Krishna is the original, eternal form of God and is not an avatar or expansion. He is not an incarnation as avatars are. I am only trying to clarify a little here, as there seems to be so much discussion and speculation as to what we believe on this subject. Still this is a great simplification. I cannot possibly convey the full meaning of all that is written in our scriptures here. ISKCON member, 12/1/05.

Small correction and specification: Vishnu is present in various expansions both in material and spiritual realms. Krishna's topmost position is elaborated on prominently by Jiva Gosvami (16th cent) in his Krishna Sandarbha. - Jan/VEDA, 12/2/05
You are absolutley correct. In attempting to be brief, and cover only points previously mentioned, I had left out information that I assumed might confuse the issue further. Thank you for your input.

Pruning external links

The external links section is getting way out of hand. For example, there are nearly 20 links to random ISKCON members. According to the guidelines, Wikipedia is not a link repository. We don't need a link to every member, every pro-ISCON and every anti-ISKCON site. I propose to do some major pruning here. Comments anyone? --Lee Hunter 20:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Only sites which offer significant information not contained in the article should be listed. For our guidelines, see Wikipedia:external links. -Willmcw 02:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok I've done a major pruning of the external links. I've removed all the links to ISKCON member vanity pages, all the regional hq sites, some kind of blog that didn't seem to have more than insider chitchat, a few ISKCON offshoots etc. Here are the links I removed in case anyone would like to go through them and restore a few (I only checked a couple - mostly I just went by the description):

ISKCON:

ISKCON UK:


ISKCON Devotees:

  • ISKCON Devotees Profiles
  • H.H. Tamala Krishna Gosvami (1946-2002) - was an ISKCON Governing Body Commissioner and initiating spiritual master official website
  • H.H. Satsvarupa dasa Gosvami - While laboring as a social welfare worker in New York City's Lower East Side, Steve (soon to be initiated as Satsvarupa dasa) met his teacher, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami (later known as Srila Prabhupada), a modern day saint from India. official website
  • H.H. Jayapataka Swami - appeared on the Ekadashi after Rama Navami amid opulent surroundings, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, North America, website here
  • H.H. Bhakti Caru Swami - Born in Bengal in 1945, and while studying in Germany, he developed a strong inclination towards Vedic philosophy.
  • H.H. Radhanath Swami - Born in the USA, he studied Islam, Christianity and Shaivism before finding his spiritual path in Krishna Consciousness.
  • H.H. Sachinandana Swami - born in Germany, he became a renunciate when he was just a teenager website here
  • H.G. Urmila Mataji - one of the leading female members, she specialises in Child Education article on Teaching Sanskrit
  • H.H. Kadamba Kanana Swami - born in the Netherlands, he started his spiritual life in Vrindavana, the Holy land of Krishna and immediately felt he found his home [3]
  • H.H. Bhakti Svarupa Damodara Swami, a renunciate who specialises in Vedic spirituality's scientific aspect
  • H.H. Sivarama Swami was born in Budapest, Hungary in 1949. His family emigrated to Canada during the failed 1956 Hungarian revolution when he was eight years old. website
  • H.H. Jayadvaita Swami served as an editor or assistant editor for nearly all the books that Srila Prabhupada published during Srila Prabhupada's lifetime. Bio
  • H.H. Mukunda Goswami was a close friend of Beatles legend George Harrison article
  • H.G. Krishna Dharma Dasa was born in Britain and translated the Vedic epic Mahabharata into English website
  • H.G. Ranchor Dasa took to the faith despite going to a Catholic school, where he was not taught about other religions on the grounds that it would be a waste of time as they were self-evidently false article
  • H.G. Satyaraja Dasa, born Steven J. Rosen, is editor of Back to Godhead. He does so as a service to Srila Prabhupada, who started the magazine over fifty years ago artlicle on Violence and Religion
  • H.H. Hrdayananda Gosvami, (Dr. Howard J. Resnick, Ph.D.), completed the translation of the Vedic scripture, Bhagavata Purana, into various modern languages as a service to Srila Prabhupada website

This page is in need of serious improvement

I've gone ahead and made a few changes to the page today and have listed the reasons by each one. But feel it really needs a lot of work still. More detailed descriptions, pictures? Also I see little point in having 3 external links to the same website on the same issue, so have kept it to one per site in each section. People will just skip past them otherwise. My apologies for any offence this may cause. GourangaUK 16:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Reordered comments

Just out of curiousity I went back to this page to see if my links were still there. Just as a thought after a couple of hours of putting the links they were gone. Does anyone know who I can complain to in this website? bhaktin Miriam

I have added a few links to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness page a couple of months ago, but I realized that my links were being deleted. So, I added them again and again because they kept being removed. That annoyed me a lot. Then a couple of days ago, I was banned from this site for repeatledly committing vandalism, or at least that is what the message said. That was very scary for me since I have only added links and I have not touched anyone else's contributions.

On Novemeber 15, 2005 Narendra dasa wrote that he removed the child abuse section because he felt that those links were a smeared campaing against the Hare Krishnas. He also mentioned that child abuse in ISKCON (the Hare Krishna institution) is an old story that happened ten years ago.

I implore you, Narendra dasa to please leave that child abuse section alone. Anyone who goes into those links will see for themselves that the child abuse problem in the Hare Krishna Movement is alive and well. It is not a smear campaing.

I myself, have research this topic extensively for the past 5 years and have read numerous reports from ISKCON's Child Protection Office. I have even written several articles concerning this.

You are welcome to take a look at the articles that I have written in the past few months by going to one of the several Hare Krishna websites. My oldest article was published in the internet 5 years ago: http://www.oldchakra.com/articles/2000/08/16/dhanurdhara.swami/ My most recent articles were published in the very popular and acitve ISKCON friendly website, Chakra.org. One such article, written in two parts summarizes the Persistent Child Abuse Problem in the Hare Krishna movement: http://chakra.org/discussions/GurAug01_04.html http://chakra.org/discussions/GurAug02_04.html Other articles that I have written have been published in the Sampradaya Sun website, a very busy daily news site for Hare Krishna devotes. Please take a look at one such article and another one from Pandu dasa:

http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/editorials1.htm http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/editorials1.htm#9

My purpose is not to smear the Hare Krishna movement, but to bring to light that there are current conroversies and scandals in ISKCON

Yasodabhaktin MiriamYasodaDecember 3, 2005 P.S. I hope my links are still there.


I've edited a section and renamed as "Different Vaisnava Religions", I think is self explanatory, but if anyone has dobuts are free to ask and I can extend this explanation more or add new links if needed --Narendra dasa Nov 15 2005

I'm sorry for only remove sections of this article without explanation, I'm in the process to learn how wikipedia works, I've remove child abuse section because in this iskcon are shown as a sect like moon or something, please see both sides of the case, 1) iskcon has been drop out all people involved on child abuse, 2) this child abuse has been take placed more than 10 years ago, and now exist an office to evite this will happen again http://www.childrenofkrishna.com 3) I can see this child abuse old histories are used only as an campaing against our religion and with the only one objetive to made rich a lawyer head, do you known lawyer head ask iskcon to pay 400 millions? http://www.religioustolerance.org/hare.htm , also the other side of iskcon can be viewed at www.ffl.org the biggest vegetarian food relief organizacion, The real thing about the persecution of iskcon devotees can be viewed at http://www.hkussr.com/hkussr/hkdoc01sec1p1.htm and http://www.hkussr.com/hkussr/HKdoc02p1.htm Persecution and psychiatric abuse of hare krishna's devotees in the urss. So my intention is to show the real thing only. --Narendra dasa Nov 15 2005

The article previously claimed that as in Catholic last rites, Hare Krishnas believe that the maha-mantra will liberate one's soul at the point of the death. That was an oversimplification of the held belief. The original statement was not well-phrased, though well-meant. To clarify this, that sentence has been edited.

Moreover, the overview was slightly expanded for the purposes of clarification.

--Madhuha Dasa, 15 Oct 2005


I have deleted the link for "Spiritual Realization Institute" because the Institute, although advocating Krishna consciousness, is not connected with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (the subject of this article) and the site offers no content directly pertaining to the Society. Krishna Dasa, 16 Oct 2004

ISKCON comes from the sect Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Andries 31 Jan 2004


Hello User 129.127.46.214,

Why did u remove this information about Prabhupada's successor's. Don't remove but improve and correct. Otherwise you commit unconstructive behavior. At least write on the discussion page why you removed that phrase. I will put this message both on your user page as well as on the ISKCON talk page. Thanks in advance. Andries 19:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


From now on I will revert any change that I don't understand that has been implemented without any explanation on the talk page. There are too many strange deletions and edits of this article. If you remove content then please explain why. I think I know the reason though. Please improve and correct. Don't just remove. Andries 20:55, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Changes I've implemented: it said that ISKCON revived the Chaitanya movement in India whereas the Chaitanya movement has had a strong and continuous following in East India for more than four centuries, with groups not even associated with Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Secondly, 'leaving this material world' is not appropriate phraseology for his death in an article that claims to be NPOV. That also goes for the proselytizing bit at the very end, which talked about how it, unlike other vedas sects, wishes to convert without regard for faith and to spread love of God. Clearly biased, as 1) it backhands other Hindu sects for not trying to spread the word, 2) is redundant since proselytizing is innately about converting and thus not concerned with the other person's faith and 3) brings in bias about whether God's love can be spread, since many may not believe in God or ISKCON's methodology of accessing 'God.' --LordSuryaofShropshire 07:50, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for your explanation. Some people just removed content without giving an explanation and that is why I wrote such a strict warning on the talk page. The warning wasn't meant for edits like yours. I think the mysterious deletions have to do with the power struggle between the reform movement and the people who are the current gurus. But we would like to have a good, NPOV article and this power struggle should be stated and explained, not just ignoring it or write a one sided version of the events. Andries 08:08, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As of today, this article appears still to be biased, rather more like promotional material for the organization. Also, Krishna, Vishnu and Shiva are all supposed to be Avatars of Brahman, so claiming that is it a distinguishing principle for this group to assert the "non-difference" of Krishna from the supreme godhead is deceptive, since all Hindus believe that already. I don't want to touch it, though, because my knowledge of the organization and Hindu mythology is limited.glasperlenspiel 01:46, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)


No, it is not a balanced article and I think it even contains mistakes (that are part of the ISKCON propaganda) but I miss the knowledge to be certain and to correct them. ISKCON and Gaudia Vaishnava believe that the form of Vishnu is always Krishna, unlike mainstream Hinduism. Andries16:24, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it gives information about ISKCON and its beliefs, as it is supposed to as a page in Wikipedia encyclopedia. I believe the bias on balance is more tilted against the organisation than for it, although perhaps someone could include info about some allegations of child abuse and how (well or badly) they dealt with it. By the way I am a hindu, though not a Hare Krishna devotee but sometimes attend their meetings.Nondualist


I have removed the half of the mantra because I had never heard of it. (I know quite a lot about ISKCON). And besides I couldn't find it on the ISKCON website. Andries 08:50, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just a comment: "Krishna, Vishnu and Shiva are all supposed to be Avatars of Brahman." That is false. First of all, an avatar by definition is an earthly incarnation of Vishnu. Secondly, Brahman is not a god, or even God. Brahman is the Truth, a formless, personality-less, infinite, Divine Ground, bereft of attributes and beyond time, space, and causation. Brahman does not have 'incarnations'. Lastly, different sects of Hinduism believe different things; there's no single authoratative view of Hindu belief. --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:53, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
Further to what Lord Surya of Shropshire says of Hinduism, I've revised this sentence "Unlike Hinduism, which rarely seeks converts, ISKCON is an actively evangelical group." Hinduism is not the Roman Catholic church. It encompasses such a vast range of beliefs and practises it doesn't make sense to personalize it in this way. So I've changed it to this "Unlike other Hindu groups, which rarely seek converts, ISKCON is actively evangelical.". The Hare Krishnas, for all intents and purposes, are a Hindu sect whether or not they themselves believes this and whether or not other Hindu groups want to acknowledge them. --LeeHunter 14:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I put NPOV on this because it is clearly written by Krsna devotees. I'm not knocking on ISKCON, but the article has to be written for a general audience. Currently, there are many references without citations, and the much of the article sounds like a defense of ISKCON instead of a nuetral, balanced discussion. Metta, Defenestrate

Copyedit, third person NPOV tone, chuck a lot of controversy babble

I copyedited the article, and recast everything into encyclopaedic language. For me, this means

  • Third person secular throughout
  • People die (instead of "meeting their maker," "going to Heaven," or "departing this physical realm)
  • Technical terms about religious beliefs are explained in common parlance
  • Beliefs themselves belong to believers, and are beliefs instead of understandings

I also chucked a bunch of crime/sex abuse babble, and moved the list of ideological controversies under the heading it seemed to fit under.

Please note that I am disinterested in the subject. I've had some great food at a few temples in my time, but I don't have a very strong opinion about ISKCON because I'm Buddhist. I just want the facts here, no evangelism. --Defenestrate 00:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Defenestrate - I agree with your above points, and will go through the edits in detail incase I can see anything which appears incorrect from my perspective, and it can be discussed. I've been involved with Iskcon for over 10 years and have also read much external scholarly input on the movement. I can see you motivation is to improve the article. I strongly feel that the philosopy of Iskcon should be presented on this page as first and foremost Iskcon is a philosophical 'religious' movement, but it should be in a scholarly, 'neutral' way where possible, I agree. Best wishes, GourangaUK 20:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

We're moving forward. I think the article is neutral in that it doesn't put anyone in an overly harsh or overly critical light. But it's not a well-structured explanation of ISKCON, and the links section is ridiculously long for an article of this size.

One suggestion might be to separate out the different topics into multiple articles or sections:

  • ISKCON, the organization, which I imagine is like a religious denomination, complete with all the worldly problems that go along with such an organization
  • Hare Krsna religious practice & belief
  • The Maha Mantra
  • How Chaitanya Mahaprabhu came up with the maha mantra
  • Similarities and differences between Hare Krsna/ISKCON, vaisnaism (sp), and hinduism
  • Cult allegations and popular perception of ISKCON
  • Sexual abuse scandals

Again, I really think we should get rid of about half the links. The whole "official"/"unofficial" tag doesn't belong here, either.

--Defenestrate 18:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Reversal of Mahamantra

The views expressed for reversal of Mahamantra have only anecdotal evidences, and are mainly upheld by some of the followers of other Gaudiya movements. This is not central to the beliefs of ISKCON, and can be best removed from the text alltogether, if no references are provided to substantiate the views. I too added one such view, which also can be deleted.

--Tharikrish 15:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason given for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's inversion of the mantra is that he wanted to spread it to all the fallen souls of the current Kali Yuga, regardless of qualification. Since there were injunctions that the Vedic mantras (including those in Upanishads) are not to be chanted publicly or by members of the lower castes, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu reversed the two halves so as not to offend the orthodox Brahmins, claiming it to be equally potent either way, and in the altered form it could be freely distributed and chanted in public. He then began his mission to spread this mantra publically to 'every town and village' in the world, travelling extensively throughout India, distributing the Maha-Mantra.

I will endeavour to check the above statement for rejection/acceptance by an Iskcon authority (i.e an ACBSP reference). None seem to be apparent from an initial search in the Vedabase. GourangaUK 17:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tharikrish - In relation to the above I have found the following quotation by Srila Prabhupada in the Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Adi-lila 7.76 purport:
  • Similarly, the Kali-santarana Upanishad states, "Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare"
No-where could I find Srila Prabhupada ever quoting the Maha-Mantra the other way around so I think you are quite right that the statment above shouldn't be included in this ISKCON page. Thankyou for pointing this out. Ys, GourangaUK 08:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The four regulative principles

This is shown under the major sub-heading "Points of philosophical contention". Contention generally means "a point asserted as part of an argument". I have seen some references to the four regulative principles in certain publications saying that vegetarianism is unhealthy and that of some vegan groups maintaining that this is not true vegetarianism. Otherwise there is no argument among any of the Vedic/Vedanata/Hindu/traditional Indian or even Gaudiya groups where the four regulative principles are involved. Therefore this section can be moved up under a main sub-heading. Kindly check on this aspect. -Tharikrish 09:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tharikrish - I believe a small number of people thought this to be controvestial because some other Vaishnava groups do not insist on such rules being followed in order to take initiation. However I see no problems with it being seperated in it's own section. It's not really all that controversial in my opinion. GourangaUK 12:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect information

"Just before his physical departure, Prabhupada set up a system of initiation employing the use of ritviks (ceremonial priests) who would continue to initiate on his behalf during his physical presence, without the need for any physical involvement from Prabhupada. In this way, while Prabhupada was physically present, he could continue to initiate new disciples and remain the initiating guru of the movement."

Nowhere in the directive that set up the ritvik system itself does it state that it must run "during Prabhupada's physical presence". This is a baseless assumption. Therefore the above two sentences should say:

"Just before his physical departure, Prabhupada set up a system of initiation employing the use of ritviks (ceremonial priests) who would continue to initiate on his behalf, without the need for any physical involvement from Prabhupada. In this way, Prabhupada could continue to initiate new disciples and remain the initiating guru of the movement."

So my question is, why does it keep getting changed back? An encyclopedia is meant to give FACTS. Since you cannot back up the sentiment that the ritvik system was meant to run until Prabhupada's physical departure, stating this is WRONG. Plain and simple. Whether or not "most people agree" that the ritvik system was meant to be disbanded has nothing to do with the fact that such a statement is not found in the letter dated July 9th, 1977, which was the directive setting up the ritvik system. If most people agree that 2+2=17 that doesn't make it a fact. Most people can agree on all sorts of nonsense. The fact is that the July 9th, 1977 directive makes no mention of the ritvik system running only until Prabhupada's physical departure. Therefore please rectify your encyclopedia entry. Thank you.

In reply to the above please see: http://www.jswami.info/ritvik Jayadvaita Swami has already investigated the question in much detail. What is the gain in promoting the argument here on Wikipedia? It is already mentioned in the main text under the title 'The Guru (spiritual master) and the Parampara (the disciplic succession)'. GourangaUK 21:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


^^^ Prabhu, I am not herein arguing anything beyond the "system of initiation employing ritviks" of which "Prabhupada set up" that is mentioned in the above quotation. The directive that set up that system makes no mention in regard to Srila Prabhupada being physically present on this earth. Therefore stating that Srila Prabhupada set up a ritvik system to run while he was present is baseless. To be neutral, the statement should exclude this biased sentiment. It should simply state that Srila Prabhupada set up a ritvik system before his departure and some believe that it is meant to continue after his departure. To include that it was meant only for his presence is biased. That would be like someone writing the entry for the holocaust and making a statement or implication that the holocaust never happened.

By the way, I am having difficulty with that link. It may just be the computer I am using. I will try elsewhere another time.


IN REPLY - With all due respect, I don't see how the below statement is in anyway biased. It DOES mention that it was set up while Srila Prabhupada was still physically present:

"Just before his physical departure, Prabhupada set up a system of initiation employing the use of ritviks (ceremonial priests) who would continue to initiate on his behalf during his physical presence, without the need for any physical involvement from Prabhupada. In this way, while Prabhupada was physically present, he could continue to initiate new disciples and remain the initiating guru of the movement. Based on most of Prabhupada's statements in letters, most agree that it was right that the system stopped upon Prabhupada's passing. Indeed, the proxy-initiation ritvik system was disbanded in 1977, on the basis of Prabhupada's instructions in letters and tapes."

"A minority, namely the ISKCON Revival Movement, say it was a permanent order meant to continue even after Prabhupada died. More information about the proxy-initiation ritvik position is offered in "The Final Order," the main position paper of the IRM."

I'm at a loss as to what to more to say on this one? Hare Krishna, ys, GourangaUK 13:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You said:

"It DOES mention that it was set up while Srila Prabhupada was still physically present"

Yes. It says this in the very first part:

"Just before his physical departure, Prabhupada set up a system of initiation"

But the discrepancy is not with this first part. The discrepancy is with what it says right after that:

"employing the use of ritviks (ceremonial priests) who would continue to initiate on his behalf during his physical presence" (emphasis added)

Notice how the line, "During his physical presence" is completely unfounded. Nowhere in the directive that officially established the rivtik system does it state that the system was to run "during his (Prabhupada's) physical presence". This is not my interpretation of what the July 9th, 1977 directive says. This is the July 9th, 1977 directive AS IT IS. Therefore it would be only logical to omit that line from the sentence.

You refer to Jayadvaita Swami's position papers, but that has nothing to do with this simple, logical point. The directive that officially established the ritvik system says nothing in regard to it running only during Srila Prabhupada's physical presence. I am being very lenient here. I am not saying that you should make this encyclopedia entry reflect the ritvik position. I am simply saying that it should reflect the facts.

The fact is that Srila Prabhupada set up a ritvik system. Period. That is what should be stated. Nothing more. Then, you can write that some people believe this system was meant to stop upon Prabhupada's physical departure and some believe it was meant to continue. Therefore please correct this article so that it reflects the facts. Thank you.

Hare Krishna

IN REPLY - My apologies Prabhu, now I see your point, I had not understood exactly what you were saying before. What do you think of Dwayne's amended text below? GourangaUK 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this - I have removed the two references to physically present.

Passing of knowledge is named Parampara or disciplic succession. Some Gaudiya Vaisnava's claim that one needs to learn only from Srila Prabhupada and that should be no other gurus. Just before his physical departure, Srila Prabhupada set up a system of initiation employing the use of ritviks (ceremonial priests) who would continue to initiate on his behalf, without the need for any physical involvement from Srila Prabhupada (as, during this time, Srila Prabhupada was very ill). Based on Srila Prabhupada's statements in letters, most agree that it was right that the system stopped upon Prabhupada's passing. Thus, the proxy-initiation ritvik system was disbanded in 1977, on the basis of Prabhupada's instructions in letters and tapes.

A minority, named ISKCON Revival Movement, say it was a permanent order meant to continue even after Prabhupada died. More information about the proxy-initiation ritvik position is offered in "The Final Order," the main position paper of the IRM.

Let me know if you agree. Thanks Dwayne Kirkwood 04:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So my question is, how come you didn't write, "(as, during this time, Srila Prabhupada was very ill)" in the original entry? All of the sudden it is applicable now? And what is the implication? It sounds like an attempt to rationalize something that is ulterior to the ritvik system Srila Prabhupada set up. Once again, if I am wrong in thinking this, how come you didn't explain that Srila Prabhupada was ill in the original entry? Thank you.


I didn't write the original entry and hadn't reviewed the text before, but that is the situation under which Srila Prabhupada wrote the letter starting the Ritvik system. I think it's an important addition as it helps people outside of the movement understand the situation in which the Ritvik system was started. Dwayne Kirkwood 18:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)