Traditional Hinduism & ISKCON

'Bhagavad Gita as it is' is similar to Ramanuja's interpretation of Gita, which is from the view point of bhakti or devotion. Some however miss this point and think that it is misrepresented- but that is not true.

What I have trouble with however, is an organized and established sect or religion, devotion to God is a personal matter, between the devotee and God, not something that is to be enforced in public, this is just my viewpoint.

 

This is an issue we've had out on this froum before. But I'll repeat again my own take on this.

The thing was doomed from it's inception. For one thing, there were problems back in India in the Gaudiya Math before Prabhupada came west. These included murders which took place after the demise of Baktisiddhanta Sarasvati, SP's own guru. Other members of the Gaudiya Math, SP's 'god-brothers' don't acknowledge SP as the true successor.

However, the troubles in the west also stem from the fact that before he died, SP apponted 11 of his senior disciples to take over afterwards. Some of them turned to serious criminal activity, including homosaxual rape, child abuse, and various scams with money. Most of these 11 have now 'fallen down', and currently ISKCON has appointee 'spiritual masters', over 140 worldwide.
There is even controversy about SP's true intentions - some (ISCKON Reform Movement) claim he intended them to be only 'Ritviks' a type of priest, rather than initiating gurus.
ISKCON has been rocked by scandal after scandal.
Some details can be found at
http://mitglied.lycos.de/gbc/black/bogus4.htm

Thats the organization - But Bhaskars criticism of SP's works is also generally correct.
The whole line of interpretation adopted by SP is limited and flawed, and not at all a comprehensive exposition of the meaning of the Gita. Rather, it represents the standpoint of one very narrow and limited cult.

Further - SP made many remarks very critical of other gurus and sadhus - anyone outside his own line is condemned out of hand, including famed Hindu saints like Sri Ramakrishna. He also made racist comments.

There are many translations of the Gita - I recommend versions by Swami Prabhavanada/Christopher Isherwood, Paramhansa Yogananda, or Sri Aurobindo.

 

Bill, this has been hashed over before and I'm not going to write a long response...just quick comments on the above excerpt from your post.

There's no grounds on which to claim that SP's mission in America was "Doomed from it's inception"...it started very successfully here.

SP came to America because of the problems in the Gaudiya Matha...he was disgusted with the state to which it had fallen and the fact that BSS's preaching mission had been nearly abandoned because of long, bitter quarreling over position and property...I've never heard of any murders involved but it wouldn't be a surprise. He was always somewhat of an outsider anyway...he didn't really start leading the life of a renunciant until the early 1950's, fifteen years after BSS's death, and pretty much did his own thing in India, maintaining only minimal ties with the remnants of the Gaudiya Matha. Coming to the USA was entirely on his own incentive. He didn't have financial support from any of the splinter ashramas of the Gaudiya Matha nor from any individual godbrother. SP's godbrothers only took an interest when they saw how successful his efforts in the USA, then Europe and India became, and even then they criticized him for freely accepting women as disciples and giving brahminical status and sannyasa vows to westerners.

SP never claimed to be Srila BSS's formal successor...he may have made informal remarks that he was the most successful at carrying on BSS's preaching mission, and that made him a successor "in spirit", but he always referred to himself as a servant of his guru.

Look at the big picture. Srila Prabhupada was single-handedly responsible for bringing Krishna-bhakti to the western world...if I'm wrong in that, please correct me and tell me who was responsible.

 

Drumminmama, BBB already answered your questions as I would have.

My main issue with SP is that he completely misinterprets, often mistranslates key Hindu texts. This something anyone with an elementary knowledge of Sanskrit can spot. Also there are plenty of philosophical contradictions in his teachings, when compared with the vedas and even the very texts he comments upon.

Further, he often glorified western materialism, while making racist comments about ancient cultures like the aborigines, the native americans, etc.

As far as his treatment of women, he was quite horrid, openly stating that they were inferior intellectually to men and of a lower birth. This is especially comical when seen in the light of Hinduism worshipping the various forms of the goddess and also insisting that we are not the body (male/female is a body level difference after all).

As for being responsible for bringing bhakti to the west, I agree he had some influence. But when I see what ISKON teaches, it is not the fulness of Krishna bhakti. While bhakti is a simple enough concept, SP has only a very limited view of who Krishna is.

He takes Krishna as supreme god and separate from Brahman, the ultimate divine principle that pervades the universe. I can, with ample scriptural back up, explain exactly my reasons for strongly opposing this view, which basically goes against the entire philsophical foundation of Hinduism. So now we have a gang of shaven-headed people singing bhajans in the streets, thinking they are doing some wonderful spiritual activity, when in fact they don't have the basic idea of what they are doing.

The purpose of bhakti is to merge one's mind in the absolute. This has been said by Krishna, by Ramanujacharya, by Shankara, every great teacher. Mayi aveshya manah - merge your mind in me. Without even kowhing why or what they are worshipping, it ends up becoming a mere ridiculous parody of spirituality. In that sense, I dont really think Krishna bhakti came to the US really. ISKON is to Hinduism what Taco Bell is to Mexican food. I seriously doubt if it led to any form of enlightenment for any followers.

As for passing on the teachings of Chaitanya, SP is once again found wanting. Chaitanya preached achintya bhedabheda, separation/union that is beyond mental understanding. What SP teaches is very strictly dualistic, which is probably why he has never commented on upanishads and vedic texts, which are non-dual. The very same texts which Sri Krishna holds in the highest esteem.


Mama, your final question - Good commentaries/ translations : Sri Aurobindo, Swami Sivananda, Swami Chinmayananda, Paramahamsa Yogananda, Sant Jnaneshwar (called the Jnaneshwari, this is a marathi text,, with some good translations out there).

 

The Gaudiya Math murders are not at all easy to find info on. I did have a weblink, but I'm afraid it's no longer working. All I can tell you is that it was about the successsion, and the idea seems to have been 'kill guru become guru'.
SP often denounced his godbrothers, calling one 'a poisonous snake'.

Just open any HK book and you will see a succession of images of SP, Bhaktisiddanta Saraswati, etc - the clear implication being that here is something resembling the lineage of catholic popes - and frankly, SP does nothing to discourage this view. His whole claim is that he alone was/is a 'bona fide' spiritual master, and all the rest are simply trashed as pretenders.

The fact is that I see very little Krishna Bhakti in the west.And given the way in which ISKCON 'represent' it's hardly surprising.

Having personally met one of the 11 bogus archarayas, Bhagavan Gurudeva, a person with absolutely no spiritual presence and only limited intelligence, who later eloped with a secretary and a wad of cash, which incidentally, was collected by means not sanctioned by SP, I can certainly say that SP had extremely poor judgement when it came to character, or seeing the real level of realization among his students. And Bhagavan was by no means the worst offender.

Bagavan's devotees were one day under a 'highly spiritual being', chosen by SP himself, and the next day, faced with their 'god' having done a runner. I can't see how that kind of thing, which stills occurs with depressing regularity in ISKCON, can have any effect other than to throw into question the whole basis of SP's judgement. And a guru without an unusally high degree of insight into the real nature of his devotees is worse than useless.

I don't think success can be measured according to numbers of devotees initiated - and thats another issue, the fact that SP literally took people off the street and gave them initiation with no preparation. These unfortunates actually took vows which they're then supposed to keep up for life. Kids of 18 and 19. With very little knowledge even of SP's 'hinduism lite'. Some still suffer the consequences. And many have simply left the movement.

 

For a more authentic read about Krishna Bhakti, I highly reccommend the book "Yogi Sri Krishnaprem" by Dilip Kumar Roy. It is about Krishnaprem, aka Ronald Nixon, an Englishman who was the first ever westerner to recieve initiation into Krishna Bhakti back in the 1930's.

Available from http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?an=dilip+kumar+roy&y=3&tn=yogi+sri+krishnaprem&x=43&sortby=3

This book is an absolute gem.

 

I got that book out of the library and I'm reading it now...its really beautiful. So, I second that! heheh...

 

I've read some about Ronald Nixon/Krishnaprem...I'll order this, I'd like to read it. Thanks.

Since you and Bhaskar object so strongly to Krishna-bhakti as a term for what Prabhupada introduced to the western world... I'll use a more neutral term: Basic Concepts of Devotional Vaisnavism. Whether these concepts are valid or not in terms of traditional Hindu or Vedic teaching is relative to the observer.

I was't commenting on how it was accomplished, and I'm probably more familiar overall with the negative stories than both of you together. I was merely stating a fact--that Prabhupada was the pioneering individual in this regard. Once again...if he wasn't, please tell me who was.

Very brief history of principal players in introducing Indian spirituality to Europe/USA:

Pre-mid 1800's: Various translations of Gita and other Vedic/Hindu works, appreciated mainly by scholars and intellectuals.

Mid-Late 1800's: Theosophical Society, American "Transcendentalist" writers

Early 1900's: Ramakrishna Mission, Swami Vivekananda.

1920's: Paramahansa Yogananda, Self-Realization Fellowship, Autobiography of a Yogi.

1960's: Large number of eastern spiritual teachers come to Europe and America, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi probably most famous.

Srila Prabhupada influential because of uniqueness of what he introduced and rapidity of its worldwide spread; most other gurus taught hatha yoga and traditional meditation techniques.

American-born Baba Ramdass...Leary colleague Richard Alpert...was and continues to be very influential in popularizing Indian spiritual concepts.

I know I've left many gaps but these seem to be the most prominent.

 

I repeat spook, neither do I think Krishna bhakti has come to the west nor Vaishnavism. What is Viashnavism? vaishnava janato tene kahiye je peed paraayi jaane re - Only those people who truly empathize with others' suffering are worthy of being called Vaishnavas. SP has shown himself to be callous to the extreme, especially to women and non-indian indegenous cultures.

Again how can you be a Vaishnavite when you don't even know the meaning of Vishnu? Vishnu means satvatrah vasati it Tht which is everywhere, or sarvam pravishat iti, that which is all pervading. In other words the very ame Vishnu refers to the paramatma tattva, the self, Brahman, which Prabhupada constantly denigrates.

 

Once again, Bhaskar, a discussion about SP is about to crash and burn...best to let it rest. Yeah, I know the definition of Vishnu.

 

I think it's better to let it rest. The 'players' have all had their say, once again.:H

Spook - I'm glad you intend reading 'Yogi Sri Krishnaprem'. It is a book which contains some wonderful things, as I said before, a real gem.

 

The Muscaro translation seems ok - it compares well with other good translations. I don't read sanskrit, so that's all I can say.

I agree women have had a bad deal under many religions and under patriarchy in general. Hopefully, in this age, women will be assuming more and more a positive spiritual role, and getting treated with respect, as equals, or even superiors if that happens to be the case..

 

Just ordered the book through abebooks USA. I had a book about the Vrindaban scene in general, written by a SP disciple...forgotten the title...and he had a couple of pages about Sri Krishnaprem. It was very fascinating...I've often wondered about westerners who made it to India and into spiritual life in the era...say pre-1920's...before knowledge of Indian spirituality became widely disseminated in the west.

 

Is his denigration of the self, Brahman, in line with Buddhism's rejection of the self? I have always favored Shaktiism with Vedanta overtones, the latter especially stressing the immortality of the Atman.

I regularly attend Zen Meditation and (Buddhist) Dharma lecture meetings on campus, seeing as there is no group focused on Hinduism, but sometimes it gets me kind of irritated when Buddhist teachings reject the Self out of hand, identifying it mistakenly with the ego. Buddhism has never adequately explained their denial of the Self, and in some commentaries, the argument against the Self is flawed or lacking.

Bhaskar, could you speak more about the nature of the Self, and what SP has said about it?

 

Before I start, I just want to tell you that in making this post, I've come across one of the revisions of Prabhupada's translation of the Gita by devotees.


I intended to save time typing by copy & pasting a verse of the Gita from
http://www.vedabase.net/bg/10/en



When I read the quote there (given below) I was surprised, as the whole point of my making this post seemed to have vanished - as will become clear.
Anyway, it concerns Ch.10. vs 38 of Bhagavad Gita.

First, here's SP's version with extract from commentary, from the Complete Bhagavad Gita as it is, it's been on my shelf since about 1982:

"Among punishments I am the rod of chastisement, and of those who seek victory, I am morality. Of secret things I am silence, and of the wise I am wisdom."

SP: "There are many supressing agents, of which the most important are those that cut down the miscreants. When miscreants are punished, the rod of chastisement represents Krsna....."

BBB: I leave you to draw your own conclusions on SP's comments, but look at this, from the URL given above:

"Among all means of suppressing lawlessness I am punishment, and of those who seek victory I am morality. Of secret things I am silence, and of the wise I am the wisdom."

See how the 'nasty' bit has been clipped?

Now - from the Gita trans.Swami Prabhavanada & Christopher Isherwood:

"I am the scepte and the mastery of those who rule, the policy of those who seek to conquer; I am the silence of things secret; I am the knowledge of the knower"


This is quite different. Again, the same verse from Sri Aurobindo's Gita:

"I am the mastery and power of all who rule and tame and vanquish and the policy of all who succeed and conquer; I am the silence of things secret and the knowledge of the knower"

Which is better put, but concurs with Prabhavananda/Isherwood.

Anyway, even with the bit about the rod removed, the version of SP's Gita given on the Vedabase site doesn't sit well alongside the other versions I've quoted.
However, if the rod of chastisement is SP's interpolation, as I suspect, then it reflects the kind of character he was.
I'd be very interested to hear what anyone who reads the original in Sanskrit might have to say about this. Bhaskar??

 

It's interesting - myself I see Krishnaprem as a kind of 'one off' - But there were other Brits who took an interest in Hinduism earlier on during the raj. There was a general - Hindu smith? Hindu jones? I can't quite recall his name - but evidently when he travelled in India he took with him a full compliment of Brahmin priests and a tent full of Deities. A bit of an eccentric I think.

Krishnaprem though was a much more serious character, and I'm sure you'll like the book a lot.

 

Bill, SP was a heavy character, and it does come out in his writings...I'll never argue that point.

I know repeating this will draw fire, but...SP also stated that it was the duty of a sadhu to cut through illusion with words and statements that might not be pleasant or palatable to the hearer.

Regarding Sri Krishnaprem:

If others here have similar stories to recount, it would be very interesting to hear them all.

Richard Alpert's is the only other verified story that I know of a westerner making an independent pilgrimage to India and adopting the spiritual culture, and that was early 1960's...there have to have been others, much earlier.

Where would there be more info on this "Hindu Jones"? He does sound more like an eccentric than a serious seeker.

 

Bill, since you asked. Bhagavad Geeta chapter X, Verse 38.

Dando damayatamasmi nitirasmi jigishataam
maunam chaivasmi guhyanaam jnaanam jnaanavataamaham.

The first line is the one in which there is any variance, since the second line is very simple and straightforward.

dando damayatamasmi -

The word "danda" has several meanings. It means stick or sceptre, it also means punishment, it also means the right to reign (of which the sceptre is a symbol).

" asmi" means "I am."

damayataam - This word literally means "those who enforce discipline" and it comes from the root word "dama" which means self-control or sense-control. Those who ensure that society maintains dama, or proper discipline, are damayataaha. These are the law makers or the kings. However, that ultmiate power is held by the head of state. And the right to rule, the mastery, the sceptre of those who enforce disciple is what bhagawan is referring to. SP's translation is also grammatically plausible, though it would involve a confusion of gender, but to me it just does not fit in.

To know this we must consider the entire discussion. He is explaining the vibhuti yoga, the grand things through which one can see the glory of the lord. Bhagawan says I am the goodness in the good, I am the splendor in the splendid, I am the knowledge in the wise. In this stream, he says I am the authority, the power, in those who rule or lead.

Of course, he also says among seasons I am spring, among Pandavas I am Arjuna, among devotees I am Uddhava, among gamblers, I am the most fraudulent, among rishis I am Vyasa, etc. Here it is clearly seen that he is pointing out the greatest in each category. Therefore, to say I am the rod among punishments would be inconsistent, since the most extreme punishment is not a beating, there are many far more severe, like the death penalty.

The next phrase is nitirasmi jigishataam.

The word niti means statesmanship, policy, code of conduct. Krishna says I am the policy of the jigishatas. Jigishata means those who seek victory. Niti does not directly mean morality. It can at best be inferred that morality is the policy of those who truly conquer (a point which is highly debatable), in which case we can say equate the word niti with morality in this very limited context. Otherwise niti is not morality. To an alcoholic getting drunk is the niti. To a womaniser chasing after young girls is the niti. That is a clear mistranslation by SP.

I would like to quote fom Swami CHinmayananda's commentary on the first phrase:

"The law-giver must see tjhat he governs by enforcing the laws. In this function of the government, the governor will, of necessity, become the punisher of the unsocial members of the community, who are tempted, in their selfishness, to disobey the laws of the community...The king weilds the scpetre which is the symbol of his power to punish. The To the president of a deomcratic institution, the sanction to punish is given by the public will of the people. In the policeman on the street corner, the power to arrest is attached to hsi uniform. A king without his sceptre, a president who has been thrown out, or a dismissed policeman - none of them has any longer the power to chastise the wicked. Naturally, therefore, "Of all those who punish," the Lord says," I am he sceptre.""