ISKCON: It's Role, Idealogies, And World-view.

[Sunder]

This thead is full of misconceptions... so much that I even don't know where to start.

The first post by Sunder claims: 

Many traidional Vaishnavas do not feel comfortable with Iskcon Idealogy and the method in which it propogates it's idealogies.

What do you mean by 'many'?? Where did you get that statistic?

Before I begin answering your questions, I have to clarify something. This thread is not a triade against Iskcon. We are not out to seek and destroy mission, and if that is the perception, I would like to dispell that. I DO visit the Iskcon temple (which is only a stone's throw away from my place) during Janmastami, and I enjoy the Rath-yatra that Iskcon organizes. I also contribute dollars whenever I do go to Iskcon, but cannot bare to sit thru the lectures. Overall, nice chaps at the grassroot level.

Hyagriva, I do not have a percentage statistics. But I DO know from my own friends cricle who are Madhvas, Iyengars of Vadagalai, Thengalai, and also Vaishnavas of UP, Orissa and Andhra. To save words, I will post from the DVAITHA Website about ISKCON. Position Paper on ISKCON by the Poornaprajna Vidyapeetha

A Response to Our Critics

There is a widespread misunderstanding in re the relation -- or, more accurately, the lack thereof -- of our tradition to ISKCON.  This is primarily due to ISKCON's doublespeak on the question of their alleged allegiance to the Mâdhva tradition -- they claim it for propaganda purposes and to claim approval of their system, but they do not in fact follow Mâdhva texts and principles.  They say our tradition is one of the four ``authorized'' ones based on a spurious verse attributed to the Padma Purâna, and then proceed to reject, without refutation, most of the core tenets of our tradition such as paJNcha-bheda, tAratamya, svagata-bheda-vivarjitatva of Vishnu, jIvottamattva of Vâyu, etc.  They further claim that there is nothing unique about Madhva's doctrine, as those of Râmânuja, Vishnuswâmi, and Nimbârka all will lead to moksha as well.  No attempt is made to seriously analyze the drastic differences in philosophical positions (such as differing conceptions of moksha itself!) between these four schools.  In all, ISKCON can hardly claim status as a serious school of thought, no matter that its adherents shout its praises.  No sane person would take their claim of affinity with Madhva's system seriously after careful study, either.  It is merely a fig leaf for hiding the complete lack of traditional authenticity in the Gaudiya school itself.

However, even with all that, there would not be much cause for any serious concern, were it not the case that so many of our own people are seriously misled in respect of ISKCON -- and this includes, as we have seen, even leaders of our tradition. <b>In this day and age, neo-Vedanta &c., the schools like ISKCON which claim to offer something for nothing, are a more serious threat to our society than any traditional counter-doctrine. We have come across or heard of many who, though born into Mâdhva families, adopt ISKCON as their philosophy of choice, but have never come across or heard of any contemporary Mâdhva who was swayed by reading Srî Shankara's commentaries and became an Advaitin.</b> As such, it would seem to be fair to say that our community as a whole needs to re-train its efforts in preserving the sanctity and purity of Srî Madhva's philosophy, rather than merely be content with the classical approach, which focuses almost entirely on refutation of other standard doctrines, and which is not as relevant to today's circumstances as it once was.

While many are enchanted by the "Hare Krishna" groups spreading the message of Krishna Consciousness, there is also an undercurrent that's quite unclear

Unclear to YOU is clear. The only way to get to know Vaishnavism is to accept a Guru. Without a Guru, nobody can claim himself to be a follower of the Vedas. Hinduism is not a relaxed 'anything goes' religion that many mistakenly think, but it is a religion of Sadhana and Ascetism.

Yes, this is what I meant when I said unclear. It is unclear to me, and I am willing to learn more about it. The word unclear is not an accusation that there is a deliberate attempt to hide something. There however is a necessity for many who would like to know more about ISKCON. Thanks in advance, and I look forward to your contribution in this direction.

In my case, Appa is my Guru. He is the one who had done my Brahmopadesam, and my father is the one who answers my questions and clarifies my doubts when I have them. (I Have a LOT of questions and counter questions by the way. I and Appa have heated discussions on the nitty-gritties sometimes. The topic is charged, but no ill-will is meant from any side. It is only by questioning and challenging that we learn.) I am looking forwards to learning about ISKCON from you in the same way.. No ill-will meant.

Ditto for Christians. Jesus just wanted to teach them simple 'love thy neighbour as yourself' stuff to the barbarians.

First off, Jesus - if he existed - was not addressing a barbarig crowd. Secondly, you quote one message from the Old testament, and forget the other one - Matthew 10:34 where Jesus is supposed to have said, " Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."(10:34-36), I will reserve this and other thoughts on Christianity for a different thread. Suffice to say bible is not all goody-goody.

On the one hand Christ (or Krista), and Allah are mentioned as Godhead. On the other hand, Shiva is pushed as a demi-god whose worship is shocking to Devotees of Iskcon

Here is the challenge: Where is Christ mentioned as Godhead? He might be accepted as an 'empowered Avatara', but never as God himself.

Challenge accepted. http://krishna.org/sudarsana/a026.html


Christ or Krishna The Name is The Same

hristos is the Greek version of the word Krishna. When an Indian person calls on Krishna, he often says, "Krista." Krista is a sanskrit word meaning attraction. So when we address God as Christ, Krista or Krishna, we indicate the same all-attractive Supreme Personality of Godhead.When Jesus said, "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name," that name of God was Krista or Krishna. Actually it doesn't matter -- Krishna or Christ -- the name is the same. The main point is to follow the injunctions of the Vedic Scriptures that recommend chanting the name of God in this age.Our request is that you please chant the name of God, the Bible also demands this. Everyone should cooperate and chant. If someone has a prejudice against chanting the name Krishna, then they can chant Christos or Krista -- there is no difference.

You Can Pronounce Krsna in Any Way [Prabhupada Speaks Out]

Srila Prabhupada: I have read one book, the Aquarian Gospel, wherein it is explained that Krist means love. Christ means love. And Krsna also means love. So from Krsna this word Krist has come. And in India sometimes people say Kristha. Instead of Krsna, they say Kristha. And in various regions has come the word Kestha. Generally, instead of pronouncing very precisely Krsna, if somebody's name is Krsnacandra, they say, "Hey, Kesthara."

Allen Ginsberg:  Where is this?

Srila Prabhupada: In India everywhere. Kestha. So Kestha, Christ, Krist, Kristha, or Krsna--they're in the same group. Pronouncing Krsna is not difficult.

It should be mentioned that Shiva is a partial avatara of Hari to lord over the mode of Ignorance. Lord Shiva is almost equal to Narayana. Lord Shiva is a Demigod who should be shown uttermost respect, but worship is meant only for the Divine Couple, Sri Sriman Narayanan.

Tempted as I am to say something, I agree with you on this one. What is in a name?? The Name-form combination gives us the freedom to assume such. The Higher entity (Narayana, Sadashiva, or Parabhattarika Lalitha Mahatripurasundari) is the Supreme, while Ishwara (Hari, Hara etc) are the Saguna/Saakara form. Hara over Hari or Hari over Hara is not the center of contention here. It is Sriman Narayana is the same as Jehovah or Allah, while Sadhashiva is the servant is what is being questioned.

I wonder whether hinduism is in danger from its non-Indian protagonists 

Do not worry! The Lord has promised to descend from time to time to defend his own teachings and Dharma.

And I AM here. <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> (j/k - do not take this up in the next post as a serious topic please.)

This line of reasoning - why do YOU worry, let the Lord take care of it - is what is wrong with Hinduism. There are some ground work to be done by Hindus, and leave the final arrow to the Lord.

Vaishnavites such as ISKCON have therefore nothing to worry from the Christians nor Muslims. ISKCONites have proved the true spirit of Vaishnavism by taking the teachings of Vedas to the heartland of Bhoga-bhummis where today MOST (not All I say!) Indians go only to enjoy materially but not to practise their own Religion.

Good to hear that they have taken the teachings to Bhogha Bhoomi. Where has Iskcon then failed in making Alliances with the non-practising Indians? Why is it unable to reach the Indians who have degenerated from practising their own Dharma? (This is a LEGIT question I ask in all humility, it would be a good theme to discuss how Iskcon, which has successfully spread the message amongst Christians and Muslims focus strategies on regaining Indians who are lost to Commuism. mainly the Sabrang/foil Akila Rahman types.)