Hare Krishna!

[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.
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.