Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Wikiproject Krishnaism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Krishnaism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with traditions worshiping Krishna. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
WikiProject Vaishnavism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Vaishnavism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Vaishnavism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Wikiproject_Hinduism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Hinduism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] The 'Maha Mantra'

Under the contents section of the article "The 'Maha Mantra'" it has a link from the word 'Hare' to an article on 'Hari'. In my understanding 'Hare' is the feminine potency of Krishna, and 'Hari' is a masculine name of Krishna, so it seems misinformation? Perhaps an article on 'Hare' could be started and the link set to that instead? This also goes for the "Hare (disambiguation)" page which says that it is the Sanskrit vocative? Maybe I am wrong.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.72.11.194 (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Hare now links to the Hara disambiguation page (which is what becomes Hare in the vocative). Thanks for pointing it out. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISKCON and Religious Survey of 53 Clergy

Hello Smeelgova - although I appreciate your adding to the ISKCON article, I genuinely feel that a survey of mainly Christian (and one Jewish) clergy about their opinion of so-called 'cults' is irrelevant in this instance. I say this not because of personal bias (there is significant negative but relevant material in the article), but on the following grounds:

  • 1) Are Christian clergy expected to be a neutral and well-informed source for information on other religious groups who they are in philosophical disagreement with (in terms of their own theologies) and with whomn they have little or no dealings with on a regular basis? I cannot imagine anyone answering with solid evidence to the positive. If it had been a survey of 'neutral' academic observers then the findings would give a very different story.
  • 2) The very notion of 'cult' when studying religious movements gives a negative bias to begin with. See [1]
  • 3) I believe the conclusion given to be grossly incorrect. The following quote from a non-Iskcon scholar who has spent time investigating the movement gives (IMO) a much more accurate version : "Simply put, ISKCON has been present in the West for twenty five years. If it was, in fact, a danger to society, we would have long ago discovered that threat and dealt with it. Rather than a danger, ISKCON has shown itself capable of raising up a religious community which turned a number of people alienated from society in the 1970s into substantial law-abiding citizens who have in turn developed a program of service to the community through its efforts to feed the poor and other acts of charity. ISKCON does not threaten any Country's constitutional freedoms. Quite the opposite is true. In a series of cases it has been demonstrated that ISKCON's constitutional freedoms have been continually threatened by its having to repeatedly defend itself on issues which have previously been considered by Courts and discarded."

I am not simply reverting your edit for the sake of it, and am happy to discuss the matter further should you so desire. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S - (as just reminded by the fireworks) Happy New Year for 2007.

I would like to hear what other frequent editors of that article have on the subject - it might be well for us to move this discussion to that article's talk page. Happy new year to you as well! Smeelgova 00:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Comments from other editors

  • This was the sourced survey of 53 religious clergy that was removed from the article, twice:

In 1993, Rev. Dr. Richard L. Dowhower conducted a survey of clergy to assess their opinions of cults, entitled "Clergy and Cults: A Survey". The 53 respondents were from the Washington, DC area and included 43 Lutheran clergy and seminarians, one Roman Catholic and one Jewish clergyman, and an Evangelical minister. Eighteen percent of those questioned about "The cults I am most concerned about are", gave the answer of "Unification Church, Hare Krishna"
Referenced Citation
(removed from ref formatting to show editors location/citation)
Clergy and Cults: A Survey, The Rev. Richard L. Dowhower, D. D., Cult Observer, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1994).

  • So, what do other editors think of adding this information to the article? User:GourangaUK has written his opinions in the section above. Smeelgova 00:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC).


The proposed addition offers precious little relevant factual information. Most of the text concerns the survey itself, and especially the composition of the sample of clergy surveyed. The survey sample is terribly small--53 people out of. . . how many members of the clergy are there in the United States? As far as I can tell, the sample is so small as to be essentially worthless: that is, one can't properly use it to form a broader understanding of the opinion of "the clergy in general" (or even any meaningful subset of the clergy).

The composition of this small sample is odd--43 out of 53 are Lutherans, we've got one Jew, one Evangelical, and one Roman Catholic, and as for the rest we're in the dark. And even if we weren't--what in the world is such an odd sample supposed to represent? What are we supposed to learn?

It's also clear from the original source article that the person who conducted the survey is a partisan, not a sociologist or a neutral poll-taker. And it's also clear that the language in the survey (e.g., "I have had the following personal experiences with destructive cults") is loaded.

With all these exceedingly unprofessional features, how useful is this survey supposed to be?

The content relevant to ISKCON boils down to the fact that about 10 members of the clergy in Washington, D.C., say that Hare Krishna is one of the two cults they're "most concerned about." That's not terribly enlightening, is it?

This material seems unworthy of inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. I suggest we reserve the article for more worthy content.

Cordially,

O Govinda 14:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Scandals and Controversies

kind attention GaurangaUK from Myshriam-Musiris

I do think it is necessary to highlight scandals and controversies of an organization and that too a religious one, under the misguided assumption that it is an intrinsic part of the organization, and in the interest of neutrality (of all things) one should feel compelled to air it.

There is a crude Punjabi proverb: “If you stick a finger up your anus, it’s bound to come off smelling of stool.” The point is: everybody has got a real end, and its smells. But if you think that its something the world at large is waiting with baited breathes to get a whiff of, and that too it its encyclopedia, then you are wrong.

Sir, I have no wish to read of controversies and scandals in a publication that poses as an encyclopedia. Its here I seek relevant information that pertains to the organization, learn what it stands for and hear what it has to say about itself. In other words, I want and am looking for here is clean information. Dirt, I can always get that at other places.

So an encyclopedic article on Nazism should only help you "learn what it stands for and hear what it has to say about itself" and leave out "controversies and scandals"? And no, before you get upset, I am not comparing ISKON to the Nazi party, I am simply pointing out the weakness in your argument. In fact, I would say your opinion on protecting the image of ISKON by hiding information simply because it is not "clean" is the definition of POV. I think currently this article presents a safe, clean, honest view of ISKON, and even paints the organization in a good light by crediting it with accepting its flaws and dealing with them in a positive way. In this example, without bringing out the 'dirt' you can't bring out the 'clean'. 190.10.1.35 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

However, if you insist on carrying on, by brute force, I will not stop you. Indeed, I find the entries in the Wikipedia a joke. It seemed obviously swamped with the ill-educated, the unpublished and warped.

If you have anything personal against this organization, I suggest that you create your own blog and air your complaint to your hearts content. Let the Wikipedia be; it’s too good a thing to spoil with petty points of views.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.95.236.82 (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

All wikipedia pages must conform to the wikipedia guides, including NPOV. It's unfortunate ISKCON went through so many problems, but they must be presented here as not to make the article bias. Chopper Dave 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me see now, Mr Chopper Dave, would a neutral point of view of, say, yourself, include what one odd person thought of you? “Mr. Chopper Dave is an unemployed looser who pretends that he is someone important by having taken on an active role of a wikipedian.” Would that be an unbiased, neutral POV? The rest of the world might think, “Mr. Chopper Dave is a scholar, a Brahmin, one who likes nothing better to do that harmlessly, quietly disburse knowledge towards which he would gladly devote countless unpaid hours.” The second, I imagine, would be the more accurate and unbiased view of your good self. 59.95.202.194 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If the first were true and verifiable (has references and so forth) then that would be fine. But since it's not, then obviously not. What happened with ISKCON is true, and verifiable. Many people were affected, and thus the information is deemed important enough to 'print'. Chopper Dave 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Scandals, controversies, in any organization, are caused by inimical persons, misguided individuals, with ulterior motives. The organization is the victim of such vicious attacks. By including such tainted information on the organization, or for that matter on anybody, merely because you have the power to do so, and on grounds of pseudo neutrality, you would be guilty of bearing false witness. That's the bottom line. But, “Thou shall not bear false witness” is the commandment. So, you really don’t want to be inadvertently breaking that commandment--and that too for absolutely no gain! 59.95.202.194 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound like the organisation and the people within it are completely separate entities. Absolutely no gain? Honesty is gained by it's inclusions, deceit is gained by it's removal. To say that ISKCON hasn't had it's fair share of problems would be to lie. To represent ISKCON without representing those within ISKCON would be deceit. Feel free to be honest about some of the glories of ISKCON (and it's people) within the article, to throw in some counterbalance if you feel necessary. Chopper Dave 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mishriam (I'm assuming you are the same user but not logged in?) - Please also refer to my comments on your user talk page which you would be noted of each time you log in to your account. I believe the issue here is more a misunderstanding of the purpose and Wikipedia than anything else. Please also see Wikipedia:No personal attacks in regards to your statement made above to Chopper Dave which came dangerously close to such in my opinion. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 10:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, my response to Chopper Dave was not a personal attack, but merely a demonstrative one to prove a point. Even so, I offer my apologies.

As regards the Neutral Point of View clause, I think its being seriously misunderstood. NPOV is not a licence to slander, put out the dirty linen. Rather, NPOV should serve to keep out such trivalries. NPOV would immediately discern such titbits as thinly veiled attack and immediately disallow it.

I do not find the Encyclopaedia Britannica or the other established knowledge banks so forthcoming with bold titles that scream ‘Scandals and Controversies.’ Indeed, such title smacks of naivety and immaturity. It along the lines of, “Hey, what to hear some juicy trivially?” What’s that title doing in an encyclopaedia, you wonder, and steer clear off.

Yes, wikipedia has quantity, but in an encyclopaedia, it has always been the other word that matters. Quality. And in its shadows stands the other key operative word: Restraint. Together they make the golden standard for an encyclopaedia. Sadly the Wikipedia lacks both.

And, that seems to have finally gotten through to the Wikipedia boss. For in today’s newspaper, I read him saying that he is planning to change the model. It’s no longer going to be freely editable. Your changes will be peer-reviewed, and only if it passes, will it be published. Personally, I think its popularity is because it provides a forum for a lot of unsung scholars out there to make their lives a little less drab. Mishriam-musiris 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no good reason to remove 'negative' information from the article. Sure, it may make ISKCON look bad in the eyes of some, but the truth is those things happened and shouldn't be hidden from those who want to know. Chopper Dave 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, its exactly this kind of stubbornness that is ruining the wikipedia. How can you satisfy me that your opinion is not biased, that you are not using the NPOV stance, its perverted interpretation, to conveniently air your personal views. There are a numbers of people out there who, for their own profit, would not hesitate to malign ISKCON. This is a know fact, and anybody in the know will tell you that its a power struggle. How do we know you aren't one of them? You should reveal your identity and let others decide if you are clean on this issue.Stop hiding behind the NPOV clause, if indeed that's what you are doing. Mishriam-musiris 05:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Who I am has little to do with this. My point is that there is no good reason to remove the information. It's verifiable and considered important. Your thoughts appear to be "Why not just have good stuff about ISKCON - why the dirt?", please correct me if i'm wrong. Chopper Dave 05:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I also believe it is important to keep the information in the article but have amended the title and introductory sentance, as maybe 'scandal' was not the best word to use in this instance? Regards, ys Gouranga(UK) 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much Gauranga. That title edit was expertly done. It does take the rawness from the whole section! I have dared to change 'death' from the earlier title, to 'Disappearance' and I hope none of you have reason to object to that minor edit. (Be grateful I am not lopping off entire sections!) It's the correct terminology here and the edit does not really change anything. Vaishnava acharyas appear and they disappear. Gauranga, will vouchsafe for that. As for Chopper Dave, here is a promise: You become an Vaishnave acharya and upon your death, We'll say that you disappeared! Thanks once again Gauranga. And, Hare Krishna! Mishriam-musiris 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
We will have to stick with 'death' rather than 'disappearance' in regards to Prabhupada. It's Point of View to say that somebody 'disappeared' in that sense. Regards, ys, Gouranga(UK) 17:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mishriam-musiris, i'll try. Chopper Dave 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes on details of abuse: In the now-repeated revision of my details, there seems to be some pains taken to maintain a relatively unthreatening picture of when abuse occurred (supposedly mainly just "1978-1988", a period that conveniently starts after the founder's death and ends almost 20 years ago), and of who was responsible for uncovering it (even as I write, the article makes it sounds like the gurukula-abuse story was first revealed by ISKCON in its own publication in 1998, whereas in fact it had been reported, though not in as complete detail, by others years previously.)

While that may be a comfortable belief for some admirers of ISKCON, it has the drawback of not being supported by the facts. At the very least, an encyclopedia article should give enough facts for people to come to their own conclusions and dispel any prevailing misconceptions. I am therefore attempting to provide this factual basis by including a sufficiently detailed picture of the time-frame for readers to understand and investigate the unfortunate story of abuse within ISKCON. I am trying to stay concise, only adding a few sentences, but I think it's quite reasonable to state briefly the full time period of the Robin George case (which I've attempted to do, but it's been reverted twice), name the sources cited (which has also been reverted), and mention earlier reports of abuse allegations (which I'm about to do, and would rather not see reverted.) I also plan to delete the "from 1978" summary starting point, since the cases mentioned in the articles do not support the assertion that things were generally fine before then. (Though I will agree that the problems reported in the article don't seem to continue past 1988, so I'll leave in "before 1988".)

If anyone has any objections to this, please state them here, rather than just reverting. Thanks! 130.91.116.49 16:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Anon, I appreciate your desire to clarify the details on this subject. In reply to your points:
The decade 1978-1988 is the time period wherein the vast majority of abuse cases and other internal problems took place. The Robin George case in 1976 was a totally different issue to that of the gurukulas. Robin testified to joining the movement voluntarily and the court case had a lot to do with ISKCON being incorrectly perceived as a dangerous cult by her parents. See this article for example.
I agree we should not give the impression that the stroy of child-abuse wasn't reported until 1998. I'm sure this was not intended in the article and will ensure it is clear that it came to light during the 1980's.
The reference you gave (New York Times article) were not removed (that I am aware of) and I have checked again and could not see anything else which had been added?
Regards, Gouranga(UK) 18:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Folks , I am an orthodox vaishnavite, and an admirer of ISKCONs efforts. But foremost , i am an honest human being and hence i do feel that the section abt scandals should remain. It is fact, and admitting it doesnt dramatically reduce ISKCONS stature. Among millions of devoted, elevated souls - to find a few deranged individuals and to report them out is not a disgrace - its honest. So what if someone feels low abt ISKCON because of this section - i would rather someone hate me for who i am than to love me for what i am not. All that ranting apart, i have been to several ISKCON temples around the world and have seen several posters of all the good work that ISKCON is doing - distributing food in ethiopia etc. i think we should have a section on ISKCONs contributions to world society via such programs. I opine that absence of these programs are more demeaning than the presence of the scandals section.

God bless and protect us all with peace, satisfaction, tolerance and happiness. Upparna 09:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Jayaram Uparna 3 Jul 2007

Thank you for your honest advice Upparna. I agree that this part of the movement was not shown in the article, and have since added a summary section in regards to the food distribution with a link to the main Food for Life article. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 08:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Gauranga. Now that i have read the FFL article, I am amazed at the depth and reach of this program ... just HAVE to donate to this cause ! Thanks for expanding my knowledge on this FFL programme. Now that it is there in wiki-iskon , i hope it gets more coverage and thus, more funds etc.Peace.--Jayaram Uparna 06:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISKCON Activities

Should there not be a more specific reference to kirtans as they relate to ISKCON -- importance vis a vis Sri Chaitanya, how often, and different types or instruments, and so on? Is the kirtan not an inseparable part of ISKCON daily life?

Also curious as why no mention of George Harrison or the popularity of "My Sweet Lord", as it references the historical growth and cultural penetration of ISKCON, and demonstrates what is meant by Srila Prabhupada's wide rendering of Sankirtan. Article also seems light on referencing use of public open-house meals and summer festivals.

Would think it not accurate to say they have "restaurants" without specifying the serving of prasadam, or else at the very least say "vegetarian restaurants" so it doesn't read like they own a few BurgerKings.

If no objections or changes made I'll fix a couple of these tomorrow Joevanisland 23:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Any edits and content you can bring to the article are appreciated. "My Sweet Lord" is mentioned in the article "Hare Krishna in Popular Culture". Chopper Dave 23:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
See also Sankirtan, which is linked in the current article, but maybe not prominently enough? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 08:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem to me is that the article doesn't seem to inform as to what ISKCON entails to those within it. In other words, the impression I get from this article is not synonomous with the impression I get from observing or experiencing devotees and ISKCON temples, thus it seems ... incomplete. You have history, philosophy, and scandal, but no section in your Contents for activities outside of preaching activities. Or better put, you seem to me to have written about ISKCON more vis a vis belief than practice. I would think (and forgive me for the unavoidable problem that many of you may find it offensive for a non-devotee to "sum-up" your dear Prabhu), having known devotees and been in ISKCON temples, that the nature of Srila Prabhupada's example and message is vaishnavism as practice, not philosophical talk. Is my view here incorrect?

Further, the Sankirtan link is fine for evangelical Sankirtan, but not the overall idea to an outsider of the importance of singing and music to ISKCON. Such would allow a better distinction between ISKCON and other more private activity based practices, such as some Buddhist or Hindu methods of meditation and so on. Perhaps I am mistaken and kirtans are not or are no longer part of daily ISKCON life separate from evangelical activities. It simply always seemed to me that kirtan in all it's forms allows for one to see ISKCON as not sharing other religions' focus on self(ish)-enlightenment but on glorifying God for others to hear, including for oneself to hear. I realize I may be failing to explain myself in this space. I realize also that most of this is solved by the Vaishnav articles, so some of this is discardable as nothing more than my personal idea that ISKCON should have a contained explanation of it's own practices on the idea that it is a specific english language movement not always accurately defined merely through links to general and historical vaisnavism articles.

Lastly, how does one help with an article such as this? How would someone like me write a sentence on prasadam? By virtue of NPOV and being a non-devotee, I would have to write things like believed to be influenced by the person preparing, and so on. Will this cause objections? This must be difficult for devotees, as it must feel sacrilidge for you to write lines that do not state such things as fact. If I can provide any service as to getting around this problem, advise me further and I shall help all I can. Joevanisland 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hare Krishna. I suggest you write a practices section on a sandbox page (eg. here ) and GourangaUK and I can help work on it and edit it to a NPOV section. Let me know when you start and we'll jump in :) Chopper Dave 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Forgive my poor explanation then, as my own perspective is not that of a devotee and would be (hopefully) NPOV from the start. I'm more trying to grasp how articles come about when the need for NPOV seems to be offensive to the people/position being explained and would thus seemingly trigger objections. Perhaps I've met too many devotees! I can't help but feel guilty describing things such as prasadam and reincarnation as simply theories, even if I personally believed them to be so! It's more a problem with who am I to write about ISKCON. In truth, I'd be happy if the section "Preaching activities" was renamed simply "Activities", with the current preaching info plus a little bit more about devotee life. I'll try something in sandbox as soon as I can. Joevanisland 21:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Joe, Wikipedia is based upon the ideal of encyclopedic, informed, neutrality in it's articles. Any additions should be written with this in mind, with objections/debates being beaten out via consensus on the discussion pages. Best Wishes with your edits, Gouranga(UK) 11:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISKONISKCON: Followers of the Vedas?

Ok, I know that Swami Prabhupada translated the Vedas and other legendary Hindu scriptures. But does ISKON actually perform rituals in the vedic scriptures ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne0Freedom (talk • contribs) 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The focus within Gaudiya Vaishnavism (including ISKCON) is on the teachings of Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavata Purana and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. As a tradition it is more closely connected with the Puranic texts, and some of the Upanishads, rather than the three Vedas. Still, I suspect that there are some rituals that could potentially be connected to the rituals in the Vedas - at least in some form, or which are taken directly from them directly. The fire sacrifice during initiation and deity installation is the one that first springs to mind. Would have to find a GV priest who performs temple rituals and know the background behind them. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
ISKCON is based on the essential Vedic message - matras given in diksa include Rg Veda's himn and the main chant is Upanisadic maha-mantra. Thus Vedaantic roots of the movement are hard to ignore. Number of rituals are performed, such as angihotras, but majority of the rituals are based on the Vaisnava Pancaratra system.Wikidās 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Non-sectarian in its ideals"

Why is a statement from ISKCON own source given as a fact? 217.198.224.13 10:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it shows that ISKCON is non-sectarian in it's ideals. To what extent it does or doesn't meet it's own ideals is a totally different question, but the source clearly illustrates this as an ideal of the organisation. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rath Yatra Controversy

ISKCON arranges Rath Yatras in India and around the world at different times. These Rath yatras were objected by the Jagganath temple of Puri as being against tradition. [2] Adding a note of the issue in img cap.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have heard the story, which to me sounds largely political, and wouldn't see it as being noteworthy enough to add into the article. Ratha Yatra's have been happening around the world since the late 1960's. Think why are people objecting suddenly? Jagganatha is free to go where and when He chooses. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
IMO, this should be added as per NPOV. Giving a sense of the criticism faced by ISKCON (which can be regarded new Vaishanavism) by the old guard.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that NPOV really comes into it. It's a story created for political purposes. By adding it here we are simply letting Wikipedia be used as a political soapbox. The history is that the Jagganath temple doesn't allow Hindus into the temple of non-Indian origin, or who are not from traditional Hindu families. It has had this rule for hundreds of years. One of the founder acharyas of the Gaudiya tradition known as Haridas Thakur (from 1400's) is one such example. Gaudiya Vaishnavas who were born originally in Muslim families, or from outside of Hinduism have in the past, largely tolerated this and got on with things (at least I don't know of any past protests). In recent years a lot of members of ISKCON when visiting Jagannath Puri for pilgrimage have felt it wrong that pilgrims who are racially African, Caucasian, or Chinese etc... are not allowed entry to the temple, even though they are practising Hindus. I don't know all the details, but especially in December last year, a number of articles appeared in the Indian press which were critical of this no-entry to foreigners rule. Now, shortly afterwards suddenly some members of the Jagannath temple are creating news stories which are critical of ISKCON. Does this not sound like a strange coincidence? The simple facts are that the members of the Jagannath temple have the responsibility to decide who is permitted into the temple and who isn't, and members of ISKCON have the responsibility to decide when they have their festivals. In my humble opinion this whole tit-for-tat scenario has no place in Wikipedia. Sincere regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry to say this but the reasoning above is WP:OR. If Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has a criticism section. An article devoted to criticism of Hinduism. Why can't this article ISKCON have the section? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This article includes plenty of criticisms (see: internal problems & controversy), but the above is a story being distributed for political reasons. How is it WP:OR for me to say that on a talk page? I really don't see it being notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I think. Lets wait for somebody else' comments rather I and you (GourangaUK) having a fight. I still think atleast a 1-liner be added in controversy then. The Internal problems and controversy does not discuss view of organisation by other Vaishanava or HIndu outfits.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that the Jagganath temple is not funded by ISKCON and **its** rules and policies of not allowing non-hindus to enter the temple is much much older than ISKCON iteself, what is your (ISKCON's) basis for demanding that they open their doors to ISKCON members? Desione (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There are many organizations (such as Jagganath temple) who restrict their membership and the right of private organizations to restrict membership has been well recognized in modern legal courts throughout the world. So again, what basis does ISKCON has in demanding that Jagganth temple open its doors more than it has Desione (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Desione, your above comments are innapropriate and off-topic. The question is in regards to the notability of the story for inclusion in this article. This talk page is not for people to air their own personal views or have a general debate. As I stated above "members of the Jagannath temple have the responsibility to decide who is permitted into the temple and who isn't". Who are you arguing with? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
GourangaUK, I probably didn't phrase is right. What I was saying was that the event is not only notable but should be fully discussed. What needs to be discussed here is basis on which an organization (ISKCON) that does not even consider itself Hindu (or not sure if it is Hindu) is demanding that Jagganth temple allow entry to its members. Jagganath temple has full legal basis for denying entry to anyone it pleases. Do you see why this event is very notable and should be discussed at length? Thank you. Desione (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
GourangaUK, I waited for a third party to comment. Desione supporting the inclusion, readded Referenced material about the controversy. The controversy reflects IMO the view of other Vaishanava (Hindu) organisations towards ISKCON.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If it's 'referenced' material about a controversy, stick it in the controversy section, not in an image caption. Personally I feel this controversy is of little significance and disappear overnight, not worth mentioning in the article Chopper Dave (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
With all respect, Desione's opinion is hardly neutral - and the above comments are again an attempt to become involved in a general argument, which is not the proper use of a talk page (see WP:TALK). Especially considering the current debate we are both involved in on the Hinduism talk page, I can hardly take that as a concensus. I'm not convinced that NDTV is a reliable source, and as Chopper Dave has stated, even if we do include the information, it should be in the controversy section, not within the image caption. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
GourangaUK, I don't have an intention to argue out with you on this at length. But since you question my neurality allow me to respond. Common sense (as opposed to bias or neutrality) dictates that the basis on which a self-proclaimed non-hindu organization disrespected and agitated against one of the most well respected Hindu institutions (which has acted well within its rights) should be discussed in detail in the ISKCON article. As per common sense (as opposed to bias or neutrality), this is an unusual act not just in the scope of Hinduism but in scope of any religious institution. Thank you Desione (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding in controversy as per DAve. Though the online link to the incident on The Times of India website seems to dead (TOI had publishd the story in the newspaper), i found this [3] which says "Earlier last week, the priests had criticised ISKCON for holding "untimely" Rath Yatra".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Redtiger, the TOI link is better, and the way you had written it out makes more sense now within the article. I have made some changes to the general wording and added some additional links on the subject. It is something that was building up in 2007. My view is still that it is too small affair to make much notice of, but if it has caused a stir within India then I understand your point. Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I just made some minor modifications, removed racial/foreign references (both from Jagganth temple and ISKCON) and added Jaganth temple POV. Desione (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the controversy will go away in time (if something similar doesn't happen next year). However, from what I have seen it has been building up for years. Desione (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Desione, I have reverted your changes on the grounds of WP:OR. It is not so simple to say that ISKCON is not a Hindu organisation, nor is that the reason why ISKCON members were not let into the temple. Members of ISKCON of Indian parentage have been allowed access for many years. It has only ever been people of non-Indian parentage that were not allowed. When they say 'No-Hindus allowed' it incorporates the belief that in order to be Hindu, you have to be of Indian stock. Have you ever visited the temple with non-Indian pilgrims? I have. This is how it works. I havn't got any particular problem with it, but we shouldn't change the facts.[4] Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources for ISKCON related articles

  • I have added some ISKCON related websites to the reliable sources notice board at Reliable sources for ISKCON related articles. Please feel free to post any reference you are considering using for ISKCON related articles and biographies. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ISKCON work group

[edit] Changes to wording

I have reverted some changes today based on the following logic:

  1. It is better to use the word belief where a belief is being mentioned, rather than describe it as an 'understanding', it's just more straightforward.
  2. Linking the same word a number of times within the same article is discouraged in Wikipedia, and so I have removed duplicate links. I have also removed links which come back again to this article, either directly, or through another disambiguation page (i.e Maha-mantra).
  3. The term Gauda in Gaudiya Vaishnavism specifically refers to where the branch of Gaudiya Vaishnavism began, or was first recognised, and thus mentioned other places such as Rajastan in the sentence complicates the meaning. The reference to Mathura, obviously includes Vrindavan.
  4. 'Disseminated' sounds like more of a medical term. Whereas, at least to me, 'popularized' sounds more straightforward.
  5. Details of the Maha-mantra's connection with the Kali-Santarana Upanishad are given in the main article.

Hope this clarifies my edits. Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One should not use word that means: A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof - to the the concepts that have huge logical, sastrical, historical and practical support. Please refer to any rules to the referencing a number of times. Please refer to WP:CITET. Prabhupada did not "cater to popular taste to make popular and present to the general public" anything. His presentation and way of spreading was different, while some of his followers, to whom you may belong, may not appreciate it. Please re-examine. Wikidas (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Wikidas, please could you describe exactly what you meant to say in that last statement? It is against WP:NPOV to describe a belief as an understanding. We need to discuss changes fully before going any further. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Verifiable information should not be called a belief. If Caitanya Vaisnavas say 'it does not depend on belief' it falls within verif source. I agree with you that changes needs to be discussed before just undoing 20 edits by other editor. Lets make some sense here. Wikidās 02:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Dear Wikidas,

I attempted to begin a discussion, but you appeared to ignore the above points? In your recent edits you have, amongst some good edits I must add, also :

  1. Added a reference to back up an argument that ISKCON's philosophy goes back to the time of the Greeks. - This is clearly original research, and too much of a point of view statement to include in the introduction. To say that ISKCON follows the philosophy of Gaudiya Vaishnavism is surely detail enough for the introductory paragraph?
  2. Removed words such as "belief" because you seem to believe that use of such words to describe a religious movement is out of place? Please note that we need to write from a neutral perspective as much as possible. To describe a religious belief as a religious belief is plain common-sense.
  3. Replaced the link to Mathura (which includes Vrindavan) as pointed out already above.
  4. Added links to the words ISKCON and Maha Mantra, one of which re-directs to this article (this is the ISKCON article), the other of which goes to a disambiguation page, from where you would then have to go to the Hare Krishna article, which is already linked. Therefore neither of these links is required.
  5. Added a point of view that ISKCON was evangelistic. No, it is still an evangelistic movement. It actively seeks converts. This is a fact. The extent of outreach preaching within the movement is another issue. It is incorrect to say that ISKCON only was evangelistic. It's a point of view.
  6. Added citations, some of which are very useful, granted, one of which (i.e the first one) seems out of place, or a more suitable reference could be used?

As much as I appreciate your beneficial changes and agree with keeping some of the recent citations I will have to revert the other changes. Unless you can explain good reasons for the above? As a general note, I have found it is often very helpful to discuss things on the talk page before making several changes of this type to articles which involve a lot of general activity.

Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: GourangaUK points 1-6

If you narrow your point to the above 6 points I think we can arrive to an agreement. It however requires some consideration.

  1. Introduction allows to a (not very well ref.) statement that some consider ISKCON to be NRM. The point has to be addressed in the introduction itself with sufficient refs. Monotheistic Vaisnavism existed and is recorded from pre-christian era. That is an important consideration. Just locating a particular sect to a particular place "Gauda" is a weak point and does not sufficently address the issue of it being a NRM or a sect. In fact the purpose of ISKCON and presentation should be different and that is not POV statement. I do think that references to initial (not so sucessful) attempts to spread Vaisnava monotheism and the same specific message are needed in introduction.
  2. I will propose a neutral wording that may satisfy your dislike of the wording and at the same time will not stress subjectivity of belief.
  3. I agree that places that you suggest can be listed and do not object exclusion of Rajastan, However its true that Rajastan (that is part of Vrajamandal) is clearly not Mathura and is currently in a different state:-) So maybe worth considering..
  4. Links ISKCON should be removed. However some detail reference to the Upanisadic background of the mahamantra seems to be essential.
  5. Its important to understand the dynamics of ISKCON today when its preaching strategies are presented. There is no reason to pain 1980s picture that does not reflect the reality. Its clearly not as evangelistic as it was and more community oriented. I will propose a re-wording for your consideration. Please let me know what you will consider reasonable. It will require a NPOV review.
  6. I will work on a better reference to replace the first one. If you find any let me know.

Wikidās 21:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wikidas, in regards to point 1, I don't think this article is the place to discuss the ancient origins of Vaishnavism. I've often read scholars making the point that in a general comparison to Gaudiya Traditions in India "the only really new thing about ISKCON was its move to the west". Maybe that could be a useful way forward? In Hinduism by Ian Jamison, 2006 (ISBN 1-84489-420-7), he writes on p177: "It is only ISKCON's activity in the West that is 'new'". I've heard that said in another book which assessed which movements were suspected as being cults or not. I forget the lady author's name?
In regards to point 4, I wonder if an accurate assessment of ISKCONs current global preaching strategies is a bit out of scope for this article. We can say for sure that most temples have historically focused on sankirtan and harinama as forms of preaching, and this is also what is stressed in most of Prabhupada's literature. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Category:Vaishnavism is an important category and should not be removed Wikidās ॐ 07:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ISKCON is already a sub-category of Vaishnavism [in Wikipedia], and thus the article should not be in both categories.--Editor2020 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It should then be in Vaisnavism. It makes not sense to put ISKCON in the category ISKCON for navigational reasons. Wikidās ॐ 17:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is in Vaishnavism, that's what I just said. You can't seriously be saying that the article "ISKCON" should not be in the category "ISKCON", so I am going to assume a breakdown in communication.

We are discussing two different things, articles and categories. The article ISKCON goes in the Category ISKCON. The category ISKCON is a Sub-category of the Category Vaishnavism.--Editor2020 (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed and added appropriate cats. To compensate for the fact that ISKCON is labeled as a separate denomination different from Vaisnavism. There should be discussion on it. I will add it to Vaisnavism Project page. Wikidās ॐ 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you discuss categories you want to remove here: - Category:Krishnology appears to be quite on topic. Also Category:Bhakti movement]] Category:Hindu traditions]] You can be more consistent and since you kept Bhakti movement]] first time around keep it again. Why do you think that Hindu traditions is not a right category? Wikidās ॐ 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent move

Three references where moved from LEAD to section on internal problems,[5] I wonder how come external criticism belongs to internal problems of the group ?--talk-to-me! (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong to the lead of the article.Gaura79 (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The lead section acts as abstract of the article, and more often then not, it consists of both views, one advocating the group, other negating the group, only statement that I added was ISKCON has been a subject matter of discussion with anti-cult movements, and three references were provided, now why was that removed from the lead ? What is the understanding of lead section (introduction part) ? Kindly explain if my addition is wrong!.--talk-to-me! (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Regrading this revert [6], waiting for your input. :)--talk-to-me! (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Your references were not academic and POV type. It is balanced and placed in the appropriate section of the article, that deals with problems, of which anticult is not the most important one (unless you screen name is Cult free world). Wikidās ॐ 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
How do you propose to incorporate the other half, in the lead section, to complete the picture ? If you refer the Anti-cult_movement page, you will find Stevan Hassan there, hence it is not a POV type, I linked it, you removed it.--talk-to-me! (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sure that there is hardly any place for it in the lead. Its just a few words and there is no controversy about it, its a fact of life. If it was a current problem, maybe it would come into lead, but since its not current, 20-25 years old, there is hardly any need to have in the lead. If you get a consensus of other editors on putting it in the lead, I can not see it as a problem, but at present it should stay where it is. Regards. Wikidās ॐ 13:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
As i am busy with some other stuff, i request to hold this discussion for sometime, once free, will return back !--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Cult free world add biased sources

User:Cult free world add very biased sources, no meet WP:Verfiability and WP:Reliability. Rick Ross is anti-cult activist -- not neutral source. Freedomofmind is blog, anti-cult POV. CESNUR site no say is cult, say is sect, and say yoga is sect too. Did User:Cult free world read article? User:Cult free world do original research. Please give 3rd party sources. No add bad sources. Thank you very much. 123.242.230.164 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas and Gaura79, sorry if change referecnes. Please fix. sorry. 123.242.230.164 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that that sources should meet WP policy. Please see WP:CITE for info and links to other policies. The statements themself are fair and there are sources to support it.Wikidās ॐ 17:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Stevan hassan (freedom of mind) and rick-ross institute, both are considered experts for cults. An encyclopedia article should contain information from all quarters about the subject. It can be discussed further, just that i noticed that article was missing these critical (important) section, which should be incorporated in the article, how and where, we can discuss that. Article needs some help for sure. :) --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
No, these men no cult experts. They anticult activists. This their purpose. You need professors or universitys as neutral sources. Thank you very much for listening. 123.242.230.164 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While they are controversial, they are also considered leaders and in the field and they are used as citations all over wikipedia.

Anyway they aren't being cited as experts. All the text says is that ISKON has been discussed within the anti-cult movement. Here are two examples.

Reverting the removal of the text. Sethie (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that original references were added by Cult_free_world who has history of similar actions [7]. NPOV should be addressed in this case by providing alternative readings.


Wikidās ॐ, this is very common with cult member's, that case of SSP, is not isolated one, here is another such case [8]. It happens, but as far as ISKCON is concerned, its more spiritual, hence does not lead to that path, which Sahaja Yoga[9], or Sahaja Marg [10] lead to, we can work together with this article, keeping in view the WP:NPA policy. :) is it possible here.. I hope so..--talk-to-me! (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No, sources no good, not 3rd party, from selfwebsites. Sentence okay, just no good sources. Find good sources. Thank you very much. Agree with Gaura79 no lead (WP:UNDUE), but here good. 67.167.134.79 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The sources are fine. The lead is another question. Sethie (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)