Hare Krishna!

[satay]

What can one say about a group of devotees that call themselves with the name of the supreme being?

Hare Krishna! Yes, indeed...Krishna is the Hari and just chanting the name of the organization gives some sort of spritual calmness to the mind.

I have a kind of a love/dislike relationship with the ISKCON though I will be very honest and say that I have never interacted directly with any of the devotees in person.

Love because they show such passion for Bhagwan that each and sometimes I feel envy because I lack that in my being.

Dislike because I don't know why but I don't like the 'preaching' part also I think the current org has become too 'business' like and it could be that that was not what sri prahbupada wanted.

Hare Krishna!
satay

[mikehk2007]

dear mr satay,

it is good to know you. it is quite natural for human to form liking and disliking on anything based on the superficial peceptions. so don't feel ashamed for such feelings on ISKCON. but the bottom line is your love for Sri Hari.

when you say they have become more commercial, they may have to do something to exist on this mundane world. this movement is sustaining lots of families who seek refuge under Krishna. When i see those dasas and dasis with their kids who have totally surrendered to the Lord and chose to live under His shadow they also need some source of sustenance and they are doing it. Moreover they offer regular prasad to the devotees or visitors whoever visit the temple, maintain the temples in a very clean fashion.It all needs mundane activities from them.

but in return what they are offering? constant flow of Hari Bhakti.

hare krishna hare krishna hare krishna krishna krishna hare hare
hare rama hare rama rama rama hare hare

jai sri ram. May Lord Sri ram who is the embodiment of all purity and perfection and power will give you the total wisdom and unflinching devotion for sri Hari.

nsrajan

[satay]

namaste nsrajan,
Welcome to the forums! Hope you will enjoy it here and become a regular contributor.

satay

[Sudarshan]

I have heard some ISKCONs claiming that chanting the Krishna name is three times superior to Rama's name, which is three times superior to Vishnu's name? Is that correct? If true, I find it hard to beleive such claims.

The preaching part is OK, as long as it is done in a fair and correct manner.

[mikehk2007]

hi sudharshan,

i to your question i would like to answer you with a story from puran.
in thretha yug, sri ram and mata sita blessed hanumanji to be siranjeevi in this mundane world and dwell wherever ram bhakti is there. at the end of yuga sri ram went to vaikunth abode but hunumanji lives for ever in this world in in this kali yug.

in dwapara yuga Sri krishna wished to welcome hanumanji to his abode in dwarka and sent garud to invite him. even though hanumanji knew ,as he is an embodiment of pure knowledge, that Sri ram and sri krishna are both same he refused garuda's invitation message.he put a condition that unless sri ram and sita appear for him at dwarka he is not interestede in visiting sri krisna's palace.

but you know sri krishna is mere a servant to his devotees and he sent the invitation back to hanumanji that sri ram himself would be present and bless hanumanjis visit.

why i am telling this story. hanumanji didn't intend to insult or belittle sri krishna. he wanted to tell the world to be firm in your prem or love to sri hari in any of his form. he will be your servant. i myself even though worship sri krishna, my heart always go to sri ram and whatever sri ram can give me is enough. i am not goijng to weigh which deity will give me more benefit.

so if we are going to see who is more powerful or which name is going to give you more benefit it will give you nothing. follow your heart and be firm in your love. after all love doesn't expect returns.

in vishnu sahasranaam it says,

sri rama rama ramedhi rame raame manorame,
sahasra nama dattulyam, rama nama varannane.

saying ram with love is equal to saying all 1000 naam of sri hari.

hare krishna hare krishna krishana krishna hare hare
hare rama hare ram rama rama hare hare.

jai sri ram jai sita ram

[Singhi Kaya]

I generally have a respecful view of the organisation mainly because they are the only hindu organisation who "convert" non-hindu's.

Apart from that I'm hardly aware of their philosophy, but virtual interaction has been negative from my angle. It seems their version of krishna and hinduism is very abrahamic. But may be my idea's are wrong.

O Arjuna, how can a person who knows that the Spirit is indestructible, eternal, unborn, and immutable, kill anyone or causes anyone to be killed?

Considering also your duty as a warrior you should not waver like this. Because there is nothing more auspicious for a warrior than a righteous war.

Treating pleasure and pain, gain and loss, and victory and defeat alike, engage yourself in your duty. By doing your duty this way you will not incur sin.

Hari Om

[satay]

I generally have a respecful view of the organisation mainly because they are the only hindu organisation who "convert" non-hindu's.

They don't convert they just preach.



Apart from that I'm hardly aware of their philosophy, but virtual interaction has been negative from my angle. It seems their version of krishna and hinduism is very abrahamic. But may be my idea's are wrong.

Yes, your idea is wrong. Their philosophy is not abrahamic. They believe in every word of Gita and Krishna as the supreme personality and God head.

satay

[sarabhanga]

ISKCON philosophy is Dvaitavada, and their only Yoga is Bhakti.
The vast majority of Jews, Christians, and Muslims, are Dvaitins and their primary Yoga is Bhakti.
And so it seems quite reasonable to suggest that ISKCON is fundamentally similar to the Abrahamic religions.
And I am sure that there are many who have experienced conversion attempts by ISKCON members, whose tactics are often very similar to those used by Christians. They do not generally try to convert other Hindus to their sect, but they do target likely non-Hindus.

[satay]

from 'abhramic' religions, I was thinking more along the lines of 'an aristrocrat' god who gets mad if you don't do bhakti to him alone. In that sense, 'krishna is the only way' is not same as 'abhramic god is the only way'.

satay

[Pankaja]

ISKCON philosophy is Dvaitavada


We actually follow the Philosophy of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu:


This theory of simultaneous oneness and difference between the individual soul and the Supersoul is propounded by Lord Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu as the philosophy of acintya-bhedabheda-tattva.
SB: 2.1.39p www.vedabase.net (http://www.vedabase.net)

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Pankaja,

In Shri Caitanya’s Acintya-Bhedabheda philosophy, the particular individual Jivas are eternally distinguished and atomic in nature, although being always associated with the coeternal Paramatman.

If the Jivas are eternal, then Brahman must remain eternally divided, which goes against very much Shruti. And I suppose that is why the proviso of “inconceivable” oneness has been included.

If the idea is only simultaneous oneness and difference, there is no problem and the theory is only a version of Vishishtadvaita; but when the difference is considered to be eternal then we have a re-statement of Samkhya philosophy, which is thoroughly Dvaita-vada.

Perhaps we should more clearly distinguish the vishiSTa-advaita of other schools from Shri Caitanya’s vishiSTa-dvaita philosophy.

[Singhi Kaya]

Ok I;m not accurate at all saying they are abrahamic. Abrahamic religions is not about Dvaita vada, there is something more fundamental to them which puts them in a different class.

If at all I was talking about the attitude of which I had little experience with regards to vegetarianism.

[Pankaja]

If the Jivas are eternal, then Brahman must remain eternally divided, which goes against very much Shruti.

Bhagavad-gita as it is.2.23:
The soul can never be cut into pieces by any weapon, nor can he be burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.

[Pankaja]

Perhaps we should more clearly distinguish the vishiSTa-advaita of other schools from Shri Caitanya’s vishiSTa-dvaita philosophy.

Good idea.

Srimad Bhagavatam.7.3.31 Purport www.vedabase.net (http://www.vedabase.net)
The living entities are described as parts and parcels of the Lord because He is the life and soul of all living entities, being situated within their hearts as the antaryami, as enunciated by the philosophy of inconceivable oneness and difference (acintya-bhedabheda). Since the living entities are part of God, they are one in quality with the Lord, yet they are different from Him. The Supersoul, who inspires all living entities to act, is one and changeless. There are varieties of subjects, objects and activities, yet the Lord is one.
--

Totally inconceivable. There is a verse in Srimad Bhagavatam in 11 Canto but I cannot seem to locate it. It says in this verse the Paramatma is within the soul. So God is actually within our soul, but He is also outside. This Philosophy is given by Gauranga Mahaprabhu. We cannot convieve how God can be within us and outside and at the SAME time we are one? Its totally impossible to concieve.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Pankaja,

If the many Jivas are co-eternal with the one Brahman, then the divided nature of Brahman (i.e. Kala Brahman) must be equally unborn. And thus “Acintya-Bhedabheda” denies that Brahman has ever been absolutely undivided, and suggests that Prajapati’s original Atma-Yajna was superfluous (since the Paramatman was already divided).

What is the ISKCON understanding of Brahman before and between Creation? Do the Jivas exist even in Pralaya?

[Pankaja]

Namaste Pankaja,


What is the ISKCON understanding of Brahman before and between Creation? Do the Jivas exist even in Pralaya?

Ah well this question varies very much. Iskcon and Gaudiya Matha slighty differ in this and their is some contrevasy regarding the 'fall-down' of the Jiva into this material world. To sight a verse from Bhagavad-gita:


After attaining Me, the great souls, who are yogis in devotion, never return to this temporary world, which is full of miseries, because they have attained the highest perfection. Bg.8.15





Iskcon claimed before that we in fact have fell from Goloka. But Krishna clearly says we never did. Iskcon basis's this on a letter which Srila Prabhupada wrote to disicples 'called the Tal-fruit analogy'. Of cource not all devotees agree with what Iskcon says (in and around Iskcon as well). It sort of basically means Maya exsists in Goloka so there is always a chance to fall-down.! To reconsile this you would have to go through so much avenues. Bhakti Rakshaka Sridhara Maharaja (Gaudiya Vaishnava) says that we came from the Tatastha Shakti. If you search on www.purebhakti.com (http://www.purebhakti.com) you can find out about it. It gives an amazing and unprecendented clarification of what exacly 'tatathsta-shakti actually is'. It has something to do with Shambu, Shiva-linga and Sri Hari, and sembleance of light. It is an enourmous subject. The reason why I mentioned this is Iskcon says many things. But we are all independent to know what is the actual truth Prabhupada has given to us. And Krishna says that rare 'people know him'. So please don't misunderstand me for saying this here.



The Final Proof: The Jiva Did Not Fall From Goloka: http://www.purebhakti.com/lectures/lecture20020216eve.shtml
[Pundarika dasa reads from Jaiva Dharma, Chapter Sixteen:] "Innumerable jivas appear from Sri Baladeva Prabhu to serve Vrndavana-vihari Sri Krsna as His eternal associates in Goloka Vrndavana, and others appear from Sri Sankarsana to serve the Lord of Vaikuntha, Sri Narayana, in the spiritual sky. Eternally relishing rasa, engaged in the service of their worshipable Lord, they always remain fixed in their constitutional position. They always strive to please Bhagavan, and are always favorable to Him. By virtue of the spiritual sakti, they have the strength to stay fixed in their devotion, and they have no connection with the material energy. In fact, they are unaware that there is a deluding energy called maya. Since they reside in the spiritual world, maya stays far from them and does not affect them at all. Always absorbed in the bliss of serving their worshipable Lord, they are eternally liberated and are free from material happiness and distress. Their life is love alone, and they are not even conscious of misery, death or fear."

[Srila Narayana Maharaja:] They are all liberated. They don't know what is maya and what is this material world. Who knows? We know. We have come from tatastha-sakti, from a manifestation of Baladeva Prabhu called Karanabdisayi Visnu, who is situated on the marginal line, in the Karanabdhi (Causal Ocean). The jivas are not coming to this world from Goloka Vrndavana, nor are they coming from Vaikuntha. They are coming form the marginal line, from the glance of Karanabdhisayi Visnu. Among them, those who look towards Vaikuntha are liberated, and they go there at once without delay. Conversely, those who look toward this world will come here.

Jivas are independent because Krsna has made them so. This independence is like a special jewel, and the jivas can use it properly or misuse it. If they using it well, they will quickly go towards Vaikuntha, and if they misuse it they will have to suffer.

Here is an example. If you have a sharp sword or knife and you drop some very small and round mustard seeds on it so that they falls in the middle of the sword, some will fall over to one side and some will fall to the other. The jiva has got some independence to go here or there. This is not the fault of Krsna, but rather it is their independence to look here and there. If they look towards Vaikuntha or Goloka Vrndavana, Yogamaya will at once help them and they will go there. On the other hand, those who look towards the material world will be attracted by Mahamaya. Krsna is not at fault here.

You cannot understand this in your present stage, but when you come in our stage, then you will realize something. At present you should chant, follow your guru, and follow all these teachings. Don't conclude that the jivas have come from Goloka. Although Srila Swami Maharaja never said that the jivas fell from Goloka, some of his disciples try to prove that he has said the opposite. But I know the truth. He has told me, and it is also in sastra. Srimati Syamarani dasi has collected so many of Srila Swami Maharaja words, confirming that he never accepted that the jivas came from Goloka Vrndavana.

na tad bhasayate suryo
na sasanko na pavakah
yad gatva na nivartante
tad dhama paramam mama

"That supreme abode of Mine is not illumined by the sun or moon, nor by fire or electricity. Those who reach it never return to this material world." (Bg 15.6)


This is totally mind-blowing :

THE GLORIES OF LORD SIVA AND SIVA-RATRI: http://www.purebhakti.com/lectures/lecture20000305.shtml

The desire of the prathama (first) purusa incarnation, Maha-Visnu, is called iccha-sakti. At the time of the creation of this material world, Krishna desires to create. At that time He expands Himself as Maha Sankarsan. That Sankarsan, thus possessed of creative desire, expands as Karanabdasayi Visnu, Maha-Visnu, and Maha-Visnu thus desires to create. This desire then takes the form of a light, which emanates from in between his eyebrows. The abhasa, the semblance or dim twilight reflection of this light, is called Sambhu-linga. Many people worship Lord Siva in the form of Sambhu-linga. The light itself is eternal: 'Jotirupa sanatanah'. It is not Sambhu-linga. Sambhu-linga is the semblance of that light.


There is also another semblance, called Yoni, and she is the shadow of Ramadevi. Ramadevi is Vaikuntha-pati Narayana's beloved divine consort Laksmidevi. Ramadevi is the power, the spiritual (cit) potency of Karanabdasayi Visnu. This is her suddha Svarupa, her original transcendental form, and her shadow is Mayadevi, the limited conceiving potency.


In order to understand this more comprehensively, it may be noted that Maha-Visnu has two types of potency. One is called 'nimitta' and another is called 'upadana'. One is the instrumental cause, and the other is the efficient cause.
===



This is proof.

[mikehk2007]

yes we who follow hindu dharma knows brahnan is one and many are the same. so we know bhahti towards HIm is more important than the name. Arjun who was fortunate to have Dharshan of Lord's Original Virad swarup and his incessant love to wards Krishna didn't liberate Arjun entirely but Lord bid him to take one more birth in Kali Yug and serve the Lord in his Shiv Form. so Arjun was born as a hunter Kannappa and served as Shive Bahkt befor attaining total liberation.

This way Lord has revealed to us that Bhakti in any of His form will be definitely rewarded towards the path of liberation.

But why ISCKON is insisting on Krishnna's Name. It is simple. when you are living in a town and if a stanger come and ask you the way to a certain place, what you will do. even if you know different routes you will tell the stranger only one route and insist him to take that route only. but the stranger once become familiar of that locality he will find many ways to reach his destination. so if a religon or a movement like ISCKON insist on one marg to attain liberation it is not wron but its an attempt that you will deinitely reach your destination without confision and losing the way.

jai sri Ram

[Namo Narayana]

I would like to believe ISKON is a movement. Rather than seeing it as a monetheism. you take it if you like or leave it. no force.

[rkannan1]

If the Jivas are eternal, then Brahman must remain eternally divided, which goes against very much Shruti. Bhagavad-gita as it is.2.23:
The soul can never be cut into pieces by any weapon, nor can he be burned by fire, nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.

In Dvaita, Jivas and Brahman are completely different entities. They were, are, and will never be part of Brahman. Hence the thought of Brahman being divided is itself wrong.

[satay]

In Dvaita, Jivas and Brahman are completely different entities. They were, are, and will never be part of Brahman. Hence the thought of Brahman being undivided us itself wrong.

So what's the source of jiva and brahman? Do they have a common source or creator or is it assumed that they both exit eternally and have no creator?

satay

[rkannan1]

So what's the source of jiva and brahman? Do they have a common source or creator or is it assumed that they both exit eternally and have no creator?

satay

In any Vedanta philosophy, including HKs(I attend their Gita classes), accept that JIVA is CO-ETERNAL with ISHWARA(LORD), but one the less all JIVAS are ETERNALLY DEPENDENT on ISHWARA(Lord VISNU) even for their existence. You can refer to GITA verses in second chapter.

http://www.asitis.com/2/12.html

Chapter 2. Contents of the Gita Summarized
TEXT 12

na tv evaham jatu nasam
na tvam neme janadhipah
na caiva na bhavisyamah
sarve vayam atah param

SYNONYMS
http://www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifna--never; tu--but; eva--certainly; aham--I; jatu--become; na--never; asam--existed; na--it is not so; tvam--yourself; na--not; ime--all these; jana-adhipah--kings; na--never; ca--also; eva--certainly; na--not like that; bhavisyamah--shall exist; sarve--all of us; vayam--we; atah param--hereafter.
TRANSLATION
http://www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifNever was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

[satay]

In any Vedanta philosophy, including HKs(I attend their Gita classes), accept that JIVA is CO-ETERNAL with ISHWARA(LORD), but one the less all JIVAS are ETERNALLY DEPENDENT on ISHWARA(Lord VISNU) even for their existence. You can refer to GITA verses in second chapter.


so that means jiva is eternal i.e. no creator but they depend on Bhagwan for existence? Doesn't that imply that Bhagwan is the creator and can stop jiva from being 'eternally' existing?

satay

[rkannan1]

so that means jiva is eternal i.e. no creator but they depend on Bhagwan for existence? Doesn't that imply that Bhagwan is the creator and can stop jiva from being 'eternally' existing?

satay

Yes. You are right in that way. But the point was made to show the fallacy in question that Brahman is divided because of existence of Jivas.

[Arjuna]

I generally have a respecful view of the organisation mainly because they are the only hindu organisation who "convert" non-hindu's.

Apart from that I'm hardly aware of their philosophy, but virtual interaction has been negative from my angle. It seems their version of krishna and hinduism is very abrahamic. But may be my idea's are wrong.


Namaste, Singhi,

1. It is wrong that only ISCKON accepts non-indians into hinduism. MANY traditional and modern Hindu (and neo-hindu) traditions do so.
Recently it became possible for non-indians even to enter brahmanic gotras!
BTW Tantrism always was open to "yavanas", i. e. foreigners :)

2. Philosophy of ISCKON is rather far from general Vaishnavism and even from Chaitanya's tradition, regardless of their claims.

[Singhi Kaya]

Namaskar,


Namaste, Singhi,

1. It is wrong that only ISCKON accepts non-indians into hinduism. MANY traditional and modern Hindu (and neo-hindu) traditions do so.
Recently it became possible for non-indians even to enter brahmanic gotras!
BTW Tantrism always was open to "yavanas", i. e. foreigners :)
I has a faint idea that we do these days.


2. Philosophy of ISCKON is rather far from general Vaishnavism and even from Chaitanya's tradition, regardless of their claims.

I have no idea of the philosophy - the full form of ISCKON turned me off.
Another turn-off acronym is Transcendental Meditation TM

[Bhava dasa]

Namaste, Singhi,
2. Philosophy of ISCKON is rather far from general Vaishnavism and even from Chaitanya's tradition, regardless of their claims. Where do you get this idea?

[Bhava dasa]

The preaching part is OK, as long as it is done in a fair and correct manner.
Do you mind defining, "fair and correct manner"?

[Sudarshan]

Do you mind defining, "fair and correct manner"?

By providing a correct definition of the philosophy of the religion preaching itself, and how it stands with respect to other systems in terms of correctness and validity. One should not find that the religion that was preached to them is not the same when they start practising. There should absolutely be no brainwashing and freewill must be respected. In other words, it must not stoop to the level of Paul's christianity, and also not to the level of Islam. If somebody says no, leave them and dont pester them a second time and stop passing judgements on their fate and some punishments in store for them. Also, dont preach the religion in the market place, where religion is sold like dog licenses. Always allow disciples to scrutinize the religion and never turn a blind eye to their questions, and never use God's name and blasphemies to silence people.

[ramkish42]

Namaste Sudharsan

Good to see you back again.

Isnt it the term "Brainwashing" seems much relative in usage? What is brainwashing for me is not brainwashing for another.

I am particularly interested as you indicated Islam in association with Brainwashing, which I can understand in terms of threat directly perceived by Kafir by the very presence of Islam (External Threat) or a case as such can be of internal threat like refusing soul or refusing development of soul, fitting into Isavasya statement - Aatmahane (Asuryaa naamathe loka ....)

I cannot ascribe ISKCON doing both

For other parts of your comments, I leave it to Shri Bhava Dasa

[Sudarshan]

Namaste Sudharsan

Good to see you back again.

Isnt it the term "Brainwashing" seems much relative in usage? What is brainwashing for me is not brainwashing for another.

I am particularly interested as you indicated Islam in association with Brainwashing, which I can understand in terms of threat directly perceived by Kafir by the very presence of Islam (External Threat) or a case as such can be of internal threat like refusing soul or refusing development of soul, fitting into Isavasya statement - Aatmahane (Asuryaa naamathe loka ....)

I cannot ascribe ISKCON doing both

For other parts of your comments, I leave it to Shri Bhava Dasa

ooh, I have not indicated ISKCON anywhere. I am just giving definition for what he asked. It is upto them to decide if they fall in this category. I do not think ISCKON is doing most of them.

It must be clear when I referenced Islam, which is based on terrorism and force. Which you cannot ascribe to ISKCON anyway. Sorry if there was any misunderstanding.

[Sudarshan]

2. Philosophy of ISCKON is rather far from general Vaishnavism and even from Chaitanya's tradition, regardless of their claims.

Shouldn't you ask other Vaishnavas before judging this? Those who hold Lord Vishnu as the supreme being, and whose goal in life is attaining his abode, is a Vaishnava . I do not have any other definition for a Vaishnava, nor I care much for the internal differences.

Philsosophical differences are not much between Srivaishnavas and ISKCON, both are panentheistic. What exactly do you mean by "rather far" from general Vaishnavas? Which are the points you find very different?

[Bhava dasa]

Hare Krsna,

Sudarshan, thank you for the quick response...


By providing a correct definition of the philosophy of the religion preaching itself, and how it stands with respect to other systems in terms of correctness and validity.

Because we don't know each other, there may be some misunderstandings of intent in our posts. I assure you, I am not on the offensive; we are simply having a conversation from our different perspectives.

As a 30+ year devotee of ISKCON, a branch of the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya, I can only represent that school, and having very little to no experience of others', I cannot speak on "how it stands with respect to other systems". Perhaps no more than you can speak on ours, unless you truly and deeply know our siddhanta.

…I think that is fair and correct, don’t you?


One should not find that the religion that was preached to them is not the same when they start practising.

It’s natural that as we begin to develop a deeper realization of something that our initial impression will change. The divorce courts are filled with such cases. That can be said about so many things.

Perhaps you can present something specific.


There should absolutely be no brainwashing and freewill must be respected.
I agree.


If somebody says no, leave them and dont pester them a second time and stop passing judgements on their fate and some punishments in store for them.
Very true.


Also, dont preach the religion in the market place, where religion is sold like dog licenses.
We are followers of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, an incarnation of Krsna (God). He wants us to go to every town and village and preach this message of love for God. Those who have received that mercy should try their best to share it, as He desired. This is the yajna for the age of Kali.

Hmm, dog license sellers. Yes, they are approaching for dog, but we are approaching for God. Be careful to equate.


Always allow disciples to scrutinize the religion and never turn a blind eye to their questions….
Who is not allowing? Who has said this? This is not at all our preaching. We always say to not be a blind follower. At the end of each class, the speaker asks for questions. Where are you getting this information?


…and never use God's name and blasphemies to silence people.
What do you mean by this? Please give an example.

Hope this finds you well.

[Sudarshan]

Namaste Bhava Dasa,



As a 30+ year devotee of ISKCON, a branch of the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya-sampradaya, I can only represent that school, and having very little to no experience of others', I cannot speak on "how it stands with respect to other systems". Perhaps no more than you can speak on ours, unless you truly and deeply know our siddhanta.


What I mean is that those who preach their religion, must know other religions well too. Aren;t you preaching because you think there is something special about your faith? If you dont think so, why preach at all? To realize that there is something unique in your religion, you must certainly know other religions. And a preacher must certainly be aware.




It’s natural that as we begin to develop a deeper realization of something that our initial impression will change. The divorce courts are filled with such cases. That can be said about so many things.


If your impressions change for the positive side, it is well and good. I can tell you so many instances where Christians have lured people into Christianity, only to find that such a conversion was not worthy at all.




We are followers of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, an incarnation of Krsna (God). He wants us to go to every town and village and preach this message of love for God. Those who have received that mercy should try their best to share it, as He desired. This is the yajna for the age of Kali.


This I dont beleive. I dont like to see Christians campaigning house after house with "good news". They also beleive that they are performing an Yajna which is highly irritating to others. No religion that stands for truth does not need much propaganda - it can fly on its own wings. You know Srivaishnavas do not proselytize at all because we beleive that those people who have done good karma in previous life will be born in favourable conditions. We only teach, we never preach.

Also, please do not use the example of Kali Yuga and all. I am not a a beleiver in such man made Yugas. Kali Yuga is when there is absence of Yoga or interest in God, it is an individual's own making and has nothing to do with time periods. You can create Krita Yuga for yourself by the practice of Bhakti Yoga. I am not a beleiver of converting atheists or others into my faith because I think it is the job of Bhagavan. No one needs to shove God into others because he is in no need of external help.




Hmm, dog license sellers. Yes, they are approaching for dog, but we are approaching for God. Be careful to equate.


Yes, you must watch how Christianity is being proselytized. If you ever observe that you will loose all interest in preaching. Every soul has its appointed time with God - we cant change it.




…and never use God's name and blasphemies to silence people.
What do you mean by this? Please give an example.


This is a common feature with all religions that preach. When you are not following the strict dictates of the religion or dare to question the perceptors, they will now say that I have caused the displeasure of God etc. Have you ever seen most Christains even learn about Hinduism? Their preachers have warned them that even doing so will lead to tempation by Satan or wrath of God. Fear and Blind Beleif must never be part of religion.


If you ask me overall, I am not in favour of preaching at all. I dont intend any theist to follow my way at all. I have no doubts whatsoever that whoever practices his religion correctly( whatever it is), will be led to be a devotee of Bhagavan in some future birth. Why would I need to change that? Let everybody grow at their own pace. If you hold Bhagavan to be omnipotent, he does not need salesmen at all. Dont get me wrong, you only need to watch the movement of missionairies to find that preaching is a bad idea. Do you really think you need to save people from samsara? After all this is lila of Bhagavan, and he will do whatever is needed for every soul to attain him. Thinking otherwise would make Bhagavan appear like the Abrahamic God.

[Bhava dasa]

Hare Krsna,

It appears that there are too many points that we disagree on…I’ll only cover a few.


What I mean is that those who preach their religion, must know other religions well too. Aren;t you preaching because you think there is something special about your faith? If you dont think so, why preach at all? To realize that there is something unique in your religion, you must certainly know other religions. And a preacher must certainly be aware

Then you know the teachings of ISKCON well? If I were to ask you some questions concerning its siddhanta, you would be able to clearly answer them? Following your reasoning, I can conclude that this is the case, correct? After all, in comparison, you are convinced that there is “something unique in your religion”.


I can tell you so many instances where Christians have lured people into Christianity, only to find that such a conversion was not worthy at all.
I’ve noticed you refer to Christianity a lot in this post. Why? Do you think we are Christians?


This I dont beleive. I dont like to see Christians campaigning house after house with "good news". They also beleive that they are performing an Yajna which is highly irritating to others. No religion that stands for truth does not need much propaganda - it can fly on its own wings. You know Srivaishnavas do not proselytize at all because we beleive that those people who have done good karma in previous life will be born in favourable conditions. We only teach, we never preach.
Are these statements the opinion of your scripture, or your own?


Also, please do not use the example of Kali Yuga and all. I am not a a beleiver in such man made Yugas. Kali Yuga is when there is absence of Yoga or interest in God, it is an individual's own making and has nothing to do with time periods.
Then you don’t accept the authority of Srimad Bhagavatam.


I am not a beleiver of converting atheists or others into my faith because I think it is the job of Bhagavan.
The “job” of Bhagavan? As servants of Bhagavan, we do the job. Leave Him to enjoy. He doesn’t need to work; He empowers His loving servants to do it for Him. This is their enjoyment. Bhagavan can easily make butter (oceans of it) for Himself, but He relishes it more when His mother makes it for Him. He actually has no job to do, but engages in apparent work as an example:


na me parthasti kartavyam
trisu lokesu kincana
nanavaptam avaptavyam
varta eva ca karmani

“O son of Prtha, there is no work prescribed for Me within all the three planetary systems. Nor am I in want of anything, nor have I a need to obtain anything -- and yet I am engaged in prescribed duties.” [Bg 3.22]


yadi hy aham na varteyam
jatu karmany atandritah
mama vartmanuvartante
manusyah partha sarvasah

“For if I ever failed to engage in carefully performing prescribed duties, O Partha, certainly all men would follow My path.” [Bg 3.23]

No, it is not His job...it is ours.

[Sudarshan]

,
Then you know the teachings of ISKCON well? If I were to ask you some questions concerning its siddhanta, you would be able to clearly answer them? Following your reasoning, I can conclude that this is the case, correct? After all, in comparison, you are convinced that there is “something unique in your religion”.


But I am not preaching at all, and I have no need to learn other religions. What if I am content with my religion? I know what is unique about Srivaishnavism - there is no other faith that preaches the grace of God so effectively, that mere surrender towards God as prescribed by the faith alone is sufficient to confer salvation, and no human effort is needed. Whether this is right or wrong, it is a unique teaching within all of Sanatana Dharma. Again, Srivaishnavas do not preach that those who do not follow their religion will end up in an inferior state.

I dont have to learn ISKCON because I dont intend to convert them to my fold. Hope you get it. You will try to convert Srivaishnavas into ISKCON( I know a few people who were lured into that and then came back), then you think that somehow your religion is superior. What is that, and what is the authority?





I’ve noticed you refer to Christianity a lot in this post. Why? Do you think we are Christians?


Obviously because ISKCON is similar to christianity in its preaching aspect. It is irrelevant to other Hindus.



Are these statements the opinion of your scripture, or your own?


Common sense. As they say kaippunnukku kannadi thevayillai ( A wound in the hand does not need any mirror to observe). If you assume that the world and creation and result of Bhagavan's lila, then we have very little to do to change it. Seeking individual salvation is a great thing. A preacher must have attained God realization himself before he does that, else it is all bookish knowledge.



Then you don’t accept the authority of Srimad Bhagavatam.


Srimad Bhagavatam has many interpretations. Is it necessary to be read literally? Can you defend its description of Jambudvipa and its islands on this forum and how it relates to the geography of the world? ( Canto 5, chaoters 16-23). If you defend literal interpretations for these chapters, I can accept your view.

For most Hindus, including me, Srimad Bhagavatam is an esoteric or mystic text and nothing in it relates to geography. I accept the full authority of Bhagavatam, but I dont want to do disservice to it by connecting it with the earth, the various times and its geography.





The “job” of Bhagavan? As servants of Bhagavan, we do the job. Leave Him to enjoy. He doesn’t need to work; He empowers His loving servants to do it for Him. This is their enjoyment. Bhagavan can easily make butter (oceans of it) for Himself, but He relishes it more when His mother makes it for Him. He actually has no job to do, but engages in apparent work as an example:

No, it is not His job...it is ours.

But this is the sport isn't it? Are you accepting the fact that the soul is divine in nature? If so, what more assstance can it really need than its divinity within? The moment anybody yearns for liberation, the divinity within guides him - is that clear for you? This helping others is valid only if you are a God realized soul, and not just bookish. First ensure your own salvation and obtain a Darshan of Bhagavan, and then you can guide more people without having any doubts about your own views. In my opinion, it is not even right to change the beleifs of others.

Your difference and mine stem from the fact that you think people are inherently sinful and need preaching to turn them Godward. I see divinity everywhere( anyway that is what my faith teaches), and I dont see such a need. As one Alwar saint said it - Salvation is the inescapable destinity of man.

[satay]

Admin Note
Namaste!
I know that this forum is specifically for discussion on ISKCON philosophy but please keep all conversations within the rules of the site.

Rules of the site can be accessed by clicking on the 'Site Rules'.

We understand that it is ISKCON's mandate to preach their sect but it is against the rules of this site to 'excessively preach' philosophies of any sect especially those that do not identify themselves as hindu sects.

Thank You for your attention. I will be watching this thread closely.

[Sudarshan]

I think ISKCON should limit its preaching to atheists who can benefit a lot. Also, they should try muslims so that the world is reduced of its terror. Their preaching to other Vaishnavas is quite unnecessary and redundant. Christians, as far as I can see are highly devoted to God even if they have different (and often illogical) beleifs and we should not touch them.

If they are mainly targetting atheists and muslims, my vote goes to them. :Cool:
Otherwise they are not accomplishing much, their claim being that that teach the art of love to God, which is what other religions do as well. Nothing different.

[ramkish42]

Their preaching to other Vaishnavas is quite unnecessary and redundant.

My experience with ISKCON quite is the same.

ISKCON normally does not preaches to other vaishnav who bear marks of Vaishnavism, except inviting them to temples and asking them to buy books.

If not a vaishnav, who else has to support a vaishnav by visiting the temples and supporting literary works?

ISKCON does not even attempts at people who look outwardly orthodox vaishnavs of other sampradaya

This is only my experience.

[Sudarshan]

My experience with ISKCON quite is the same.

ISKCON normally does not preaches to other vaishnav who bear marks of Vaishnavism, except inviting them to temples and asking them to buy books.

If not a vaishnav, who else has to support a vaishnav by visiting the temples and supporting literary works?

ISKCON does not even attempts at people who look outwardly orthodox vaishnavs of other sampradaya

This is only my experience.

I suppose you wanted to say - My experience with ISKCON is NOT quite the same.
The rest of your post does not match with this line.