Please explain this statement in detail and cite your sources. I don't disagree that there have been huge problems in ISKCON.
I disagree with Srila Prabhupada's interpretation of the Gita because it is ultimately dualistic, and because a great deal of the teaching is effectively passed over, esp. where it pertains to anything other than Bhakti. Also, given the mess into which ISKCON descended after his departure, I have to seiously question his judgement where his senoir disciples were concerned. He should have had greater insight into the characters of these people, and even if one accepts the 'ritvik' argument, I don't think a bunch of criminals with an appetite for power and self aggrandizement would make very good ritviks. They made very poor gurus. There are also serious issues around events in India in the aftermath of the death of Bhaktisiddanta Saraswati. As for my 'sources', it is my reading over the years of many books of Indian Philosopohy by a variety of writers, research into ISKCON scandals based on close personal aquaintance with several former members, material online, and my own experience.
What teachings were passed over? Prabhupada wrote from a dualistic point of view and didn't claim otherwise: He is coming from the Bhakti position; you either accept that or you don't, but that doesn't diminish the quality of his work or make it misleading. Most other Gita translations are written from a non-dualistic viewpoint -- BG As It Is is the only one I've seen that takes the view that Krishna is God in person, rather than an incarnation of an ultimately impersonal Diety. You've mixed ISKCON problems and your personal feelings into your reply. I acknowledged the scandals in ISKCON. I merely asked you a specific question: To explain why you consider Prabhupada's Gita to be misleading and to identify some sources to back up your statement.
I'm not playing the 'chapter and verse' game. The idea is that a guru is supposed to be, if not perfect, then very near to it. The very fact that SP made so many errors of judgement throws everything he did into grave doubt. Where the Gita is concerned, he emphasises only Bhakti, and pretty well dismisses everything else. Also - and this is critical - Chaitanya taught 'qualified non-dualism' not dualism, so SP isn't even actually repeating Chaitanya's message as is the claim.
I didn't ask you to engage in back and forth chapter and verse comparisons. I apologize, I should have been more specific: -What Gita translations do you consider better? -Can you name books or articles that compare or critique translations? -Regarding the differences in Chaitanya's teachings and Srila Prabhupada's, please direct me to your source for this information. If you believe that Srila Prabhupada mistakes in administrative judgment, you certainly have reasons for holding that opinion and I'm not trying to challenge it. Otherwise, you've made some strong claims; all I'm asking is for you to back them up with more than generalizations and experiential anecdotes.
Gita translations I like: Sri Aurobindo, Swamai Prabhavananda/Chistopher Isherwood, Paramhansa Yogananda. ESP. Sri Aurobindo's 'Essays on the Gita'. As for info about Sri Chaitanya, in 'The Teachings of Lord Chaitanya' by Swami Prabhupada, it is said that Chaitanya's doctrine was that the Atman is simultaneously one and different from Brahman. (acintya bheda abheda tattva). That is not strict dualism as taught by SP elsewhere. At least, that is my opinion.
A word about bhakti - Bhakti does not have to be non-dual, indeed in the highest form of the 9 forms of bhakti (Sri Rama explained the 9 forms of bhakti to Sabari in a famous portion of the Ramayana) is to see God in everyone and everything, which is definitely non-duality. Also nobody ever said Krishna is not God. An incarnation of God is nothing but God alone. Also you say people refer to Sri Krishna as an incarnation of an "ultimately impersonal God." But the God ultimately impersonal god you refer to is spoken of as being non-dual, the indweller of all, our true identity. What is more personal than your own Self?
Actually Srila Prabhupada did not write from the dualist perspective, but from the achintya bedha bedha (dualistic non-dualism) perspective of Sri Caitanya. Haribol, LovePeace
Respectfully, that is because you're obviously not fully knowledgeable about achintya bedha bedha. I doubt you were ever a Gaudiya Vaisnava either; or if you were you either misunderstood completely what you read or had someone teaching you who didn't understand. The achintya bedha bedha philosophy is easily misunderstood, so you wouldn't be the first to fall into the dualism trap.
But why deal with dualism? Why not build bridges instead of barriers? Maybe I missed it....perhaps my solution is easier said than done...or completely off topic...but that's all I can bring to the table...
You're right - I've never been a Gaudiya Vaishnava. But to be frank, it would take a fool not to be able to understand SP's books, as they are not particularly challenging or difficult. I understand the Gaudiya position, but I simply don't agree with it. As to who taught me - no one did, and for good reason. By the time I became interested in ISKCON (late 70's - erly 80's) it had been taken over by SP's successors - none of whom I feel could teach much to anyone about any spiritual topic. I repeat my earlier point that SP's judgement was obviously very flawed in his selection of those who were to follow on from him. Since a genuine guru is supposed to posses a complete insight into human nature, I feel that these facts throw any claims made to 'authority' etc into serious doubt. But given the facts about occurences in India prior to SP's coming west, it seems that he was importing a system and a heirarchy that was already fatally flawed before it arrived here.
"https://www.youtube.com/v/nFsaWzKmN7M&rel=1" These guys have rejected the corrupted Hare Krsna movement(ISKCON) and are trying to preserve the original teachings of the Hare Krishna's founder Prabhupada while battling with cops, the deviant Hare Krsnas, security men and parasites. And this is going on in MONTREAL!
Give me steak, burgers, meatballs, meat I would kill a cow right now if I had one and I would eat its raw beating heart GOT MILK?
Yea, I bought some soy milk the other night actually, thank you for asking! It's always nice when somone is concerned about other people's nutrtion and overall health. God bless you widow! namaste
