Hare Krishna and four goals of life

Namaste to all.

I have tried to google this, and I can't seem to find HK and the word artha together in the same place. I have wondered about something. I know that the four goals in life of a Hindu is Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha. Is HK saying to skip the middle two and go straight to Kṛṣṇa Consciousness? I am reading the little book, "Easy Journey to Other Planets" to get a feel for how the author sets up the basis for BG As It Is (and this won't be the only version I will be reading, either). My senses are tingling like crazy, like something isn't right. I'm not HK, but I don't know much about it either and prefer to go to a more traditional Temple (one that has mainly Hindus from India or Hindu-heavy countries). I'm trying to understand a lot better how they compare with non-ISKCON sampradāya. I'm feeling Christianity in the book because some of the concepts and constructs are similar. It feels as though HK is really more suited for former western Christians, which I am not and never have been.

Vannakkam DA: I agree with your assessment completely. It seems to work well for the people who need what it offers though.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste Eastern Mind,

I read in another ISKCON thread about Communism in Bengal, and it made me think back to "Easy Journey to Other Planets," where it states clearly on page page 57, last paragraph, where I quote directly:

"The Russians are unaware that in the Śrimad-Bhāgavatam
the socialist philosophy is most perfectly
described. The Bhāgavatam instructs that whatever
wealth exists-all natural resources (agricultural,
mining, etc.)-is created by the ultimate creator, and
therefore every living being has a right to take part
of them."

Okay. I think that the last statement is true for me, personally, BUT here's this:

"It is further said that a man should only possess
as much wealth as is sufficient to maintain his
body, and that if he desires more than that, or if he
takes more than his share, he is subject to punishment."

Desires more than that?? What is the common sense in not building sufficient wealth and needs to last a lifetime? What do you do when calamity befalls you, like you become disabled and unable to work in your 40s from an occupational accident (especially as shudra)? I think that ISKCON, by maintaining the dropping of Artha and Kama from daily life, doesn't understand why all four goals of life are there, and why the second stage of life as householder is necessary. How do you get surgery if no one practices medicine during Artha/second stage of life and instead are devotees at or near the temple? How do you build temples or houses as a devotee?

Perhaps I should just open a debate thread on this particular book, as I am 4/5 of the way through the booklet. I just had to see what was in it. It looks like I will need several years before I can answer some questions to my satisfaction.

by the way, what do you mean, "It seems to work well for the people who need what it offers though?" Please define who the people are, what they are like, and define what it is it offers? I'm unclear on the answers, though I suspect I do know the answers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deafAncient

Namaste Eastern Mind,


by the way, what do you mean, "It seems to work well for the people who need what it offers though?" Please define who the people are, what they are like, and define what it is it offers? I'm unclear on the answers, though I suspect I do know the answers.

---

Vannakkam: I just meant that if people are happy with the philosophy of life that they attest to, then it's fine with me. So I mean, in this case, that ISKCON devotees seem happy with that choice.

Now I'm certainly no expert. I've only been to 3 ISKCON temples in my life, all of them in Canada.

I'm far more interested in action that in philosophy. I think it says a lot more about a group (or an individual for that matter). So it's not so much about the philosophy one adheres to, but more about how other people are treated under that philosophy, and how a stranger feels in that environment.

My main observations about ISKCON, although limited are that the organisation has changed a ton over the last 40-50 years, and that individual temples vary substantially from place to place, especially on things like devotee demographics.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste,

The ISKCON temples in US reflect the personality of the person appointed as the Temple President. Some presidents are intellectually inclined, some are more spiritual and some are neither. Each and every temple in the US has an American as its President. The reason for that appears to be that they can understand the psyche of prospective American devotees and visitors better as they are familiar with Abrahamic backgrounds that these people are coming from. When having a discussion with an average American, it helps to be familiar with where he is in terms of his current faith, before charting the course to where he can be with SD. To be able to bridge that gap and be able to connect with new Americans coming into the temple are vital requirements for people in leadership roles. Not much thought is given here to the feelings/needs of Indian Hindus as they are gullible and would accept anyone who wears a dhoti, applies a tilak on his forehead and pretends to mumble some shalokas. :) Most of the ISKCON temples in India however seem to be quite different from the ones in the West - management personnel and senior devotees over there are locals.

There is occasional fluff in the books by ISKCON. Most of it is due to the conditioning of the authors in their native towns in India, their limited command of the English language and unpolished remarks made due to an absence of their exposure to the Western ways. When every sentence is taken at face value, some things do tend to rankle the reader. A prime example is the OP's offering of comparison of Srimad Bhagvatam with the socialist philosophy. So, for anyone trying to sift through myriad books, my advice is to stay focused on finding the positive philosophical thought and to overlook/reject the author's obtuse remarks/comparisons. It is what it is and we either have to get what we can from these books or move on and read the literature from some other sampradaye. The originals were spoken/written by the Divine, the translations and commentaries are by mere mortals.

Pranam.

I've been emailing with a person who is in a curious position as a Hare Kṛṣṇa devotee, in that he identifies with the ISKCON Revival Movement (IRM), but not the current ISKCON manifestation in operation today. I wrote the following:

I have looked at the Monkey (on a Stick) book (halfway through it now), the GBC, and some additional information sufficiently to decide that I will never be HK. Here’s the other piece of information. "Lord Krsna said, "In Kali Yuga, when the sankirtan movement is inaugurated, I shall descend as the son of Saci Devi. By the Ganges shore in Navadvip in a brahmana’s house, I shall appear as the best of the brahmanas." (vayu purana)” - http://www.dharmakshetra.com/literat...ALI%20YUGA.htm - This is straight-up a prophetic religion, and this gives it clearly some of the Abrahamic structure as such, AND Prabhupāda has been said to believe and interpret the BG as a historic document, which put a history-centric twist on things. Please look at this article with Rajivji - http://www.jiva.org/pitfalls-in-appr...ndian-thought/ - this is my biggest concern, the cultural differences that the devotees themselves are not aware of. It is like asking them as blind men to describe an elephant, only to change the parable such that visually-capable people carefully guide ALL of the blind men to the head only to feel it. They have no idea how big the elephant is or how long it is, not even whether it has a tail or how tall it is. They only know about the head. Like-wise, they have no understanding of the Indic culture that exist. This is why I feel more comfortable with a sampradāya that I see as more traditionally Indian (not necessarily race or where they live(d), but simply the cultural background as differentiated from Euro-centrism).

As I said elsewhere, I am a seeker on a life-long journey.

Namaste,

If certain aspects of a philosophy unsettle my mind, I tend to look elsewhere for answers. And that is the way most of us are. Once doubt sets in, there is no moving forward with those set of values.

You may not know this but most people outside of the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaye consider Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to be a saintly person and not an incarnation of Krishanji. This prophesy about Him appearing again in Navadwip may be an attempt to elevate the status of Navadwip as a holy place even further by declaring it to be the soft landing spot for the Divine.:) But in the BG, Krishanji does say that He will appear whenever incurable ir-religiosity sets in among men. When and where is mere speculation, at least for me. This point brings out lot of arguments between the traditionlists and the reformists like the Arya Samaj - their contention being that if He is all powerful, why does He need to appear in His bodily form to set things right instead of doing it by remote control, or not letting things get so bad in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deafAncient

As I said elsewhere, I am a seeker on a life-long journey.

---

A seeker is on a journey of thousands or millions of lifetimes. One life-long journey is barely enough to whet your appetite. :)

Pranam.

When I hear others harping and back biting an authorized, with deep lineage and commitment, Hindu sect that has had outstanding success in bringing a positive awareness and presence of Hinduism all over the world, typically what I find if getting closer to such a critic is not a seeker or one that wants to learn, but someone who thinks they are guru-like with a small "g".

Instead, they should share what they have found positive or what they have learned from those who have given to them by mercy, then name that sect or other as to their giving and share those positive messages instead of sounding like a fish monger old lady back biting another kindly lady in her block while cutting off heads of mud fish.


So instead of this market banter, what is there positive to say?


Like I say, when I get closer to such people, time and again it is clear, besides not sharing the positive they have learned but only criticism, which typically means they haven't learned anything in the first place, they actually think they should be guru.


A guru can become Guru when he's ordered by his Guru. Period. That's all. Otherwise nobody can become Guru. There is no compromise. We are all conditioned souls. You are full of conditions and you are conditional. Reading a few words here and there means nothing. What are you doing, that is the question. What is needed is sabda, sabda. Not fish monger market banter. This hearing or sabda is listening to testimony. It isn't simply listening. Testimony is telling of this saint, or that journey, or this experience, or that result. Then if it communicates, and you are changing and changed, then pratyaksa. Then you can also have direct perception, this pratyaksa. Then you share the positive, and be a message. You will never change otherwise.


Do not take modern terms such as communism created by men and call it Hinduism which is not created by men. A Guru can use such terms to compare, because they were ordered to do something by their Guru. Until you are ordered, wait on such foolishness.

Namaste ShivaFan,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShivaFan

When I hear others harping and back biting an authorized, with deep lineage and commitment, Hindu sect that has had outstanding success in bringing a positive awareness and presence of Hinduism all over the world, typically what I find if getting closer to such a critic is not a seeker or one that wants to learn, but someone who thinks they are guru-like with a small "g".

Instead, they should share what they have found positive or what they have learned from those who have given to them by mercy, then name that sect or other as to their giving and share those positive messages instead of sounding like a fish monger old lady back biting another kindly lady in her block while cutting off heads of mud fish.


So instead of this market banter, what is there positive to say?


Like I say, when I get closer to such people, time and again it is clear, besides not sharing the positive they have learned but only criticism, which typically means they haven't learned anything in the first place, they actually think they should be guru.


A guru can become Guru when he's ordered by his Guru. Period. That's all. Otherwise nobody can become Guru. There is no compromise. We are all conditioned souls. You are full of conditions and you are conditional. Reading a few words here and there means nothing. What are you doing, that is the question. What is needed is sabda, sabda. Not fish monger market banter. This hearing or sabda is listening to testimony. It isn't simply listening. Testimony is telling of this saint, or that journey, or this experience, or that result. Then if it communicates, and you are changing and changed, then pratyaksa. Then you can also have direct perception, this pratyaksa. Then you share the positive, and be a message. You will never change otherwise.


Do not take modern terms such as communism created by men and call it Hinduism which is not created by men. A Guru can use such terms to compare, because they were ordered to do something by their Guru. Until you are ordered, wait on such foolishness.

---

Who are these comments directed at? One of us must have upset you a lot, sorry for that.

Pranam.

Not to you, Believer. Never.


I am not ISKCON. But I will say this to the critics here in the West regarding this endless mongering. I know very, very well Hinduism in America and ALL the sects. Believe me, I do know and every "dirty" secret. Those of other sects than ISKCON, and I am not ISKCON, I could say a lot of things that would be embarrassing, that if others knew the sect said or did this or that, would find very controversial or even shocking. But I do not. Today I do not. But do not think I know.