A Hindu Temple?

[Beggar 0]

 

Some of the points described under one group like dpenedance on Krishna and worship of the diety form of Krishna can be found in other groups too.

From Vishnu Swami, He accepted total dependence on Krishna. This just means that Mahaprabhu accepted Vishnu Swami's particular realization on total dependence on Krishna.

 

 

But when ramanujacharya was calling his version of Dharma as eternal, he was not just referring to the parts that were later borrowed by chaitanya. He meant the whole srivaishnava package. In other words he did not endorse chaitanya's teachings as eternal....he was endorsing his own.

 

Mahaprabhu viewed His doctrine and that of Ramanuja as simultaneously one and different. He never saw Ramanuja as somehow flawed but accepted him as a great acarya.

 

what is meant by complete defeat of mayavada? Madhva vaishnavas failed to defeat Mayavada and are a very small group today found onyl in SOuth India I think. Writing books on how their doctrine is better than others does not mean victory. Among the traditional doctrines mayavada is the most prevalent doctrine today.

 

It means a rigorous siddhantic proof that defeats Mayavada. Of course since we are talking about religious subject whether there is defeat or victory would be subjective.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

 

if you can't attract non-Hindus to participate in Iskcon, no wonder Iskcon managers go after the easy target audience - ethnic Hindus.

 

Yes you got it right an easy target, sad though it is, a Hindu has been an easy target in all walks of life, so it is no surprise they fall pray even to their own heritage.

Unsuspecting hindu who holds dharma in high esteem is taken for a ride little do most know the politics that goes in name of Krishna.

 

Still it a blessing to be able to have Darsan and chanting of holy names, basically majority that visit the manor in London come for that.

 

 

but as to Iskcon ever being a non-sectarian organization, that is extremely debatable. I doubt anybody on the outside would have ever seen our movement in that way. In theory and in abstract principle - maybe, just maybe - but in practice we were always very sectarian.

 

Thank you for your honest appraisal.

 

 

For me Hindu dharma (not any organisation) fit’s the bill for being non -sectarian it encompasses everything even at the expanse of being called hodge- podge.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Beggar 0]

 

For the umptinth time: There is a HUGE gap between theory and practice. In theory, Iskcon as set up by Prabhupada claims to be the most perfect expression of sanatana-dharma, non-sectarian to the core, yet up close it was quite far from that ideal. How is dressing up in traditional Vaishnava robes non-sectarian? How is painting tilak non-sectarian? How is interpreting Gita along the Saraswata parivar line non sectarian? How is the Gaudiya Vaishnava temple worship non sectarian? The list goes on and on...

 

One hundred years ago in British colleges in India, the word 'sectarian' did not have a strong pejorative connotation nor did the word 'cult'. Why don't you guys argue this subject in classical sanskrit and see what you come up with.

[raghu 2]

 

what is meant by complete defeat of mayavada? Madhva vaishnavas failed to defeat Mayavada and are a very small group today found onyl in SOuth India I think. Writing books on how their doctrine is better than others does not mean victory. Among the traditional doctrines mayavada is the most prevalent doctrine today.

 

Defeat is not a question of popularity. After the writings of Sri Ananda Tirtha there is hardly anything new or original that need be brought up to refute Advaita. However, that does not mean that people will not flock to Advaita if their own individual biases lead them in that direction. From Srimad Acharya's standpoint, all these philosophies including Advaita are all eternal - they exist to delude the jiva-atmas who are averse to surrendering to Sri Hari.

 

In Kali Yuga a philosophy can be defeated and still be very popular. People in general don't think very carefully about what they believe but instead follow whatever suits them. Take this forum and iskcon for instance. Do you think these people actually made a comparative study of different Vaishnava Vedanta commentaries before committing themselves to gaudiya vaishnavism? Of course not. They are mostly following whatever they follow for sentimental reasons and don't want to hear any doubts about their beliefs. It is just like that with Advaita also. Blind followers don't grant any tradition credibility.

[raghu 2]

 

From Vishnu Swami, He accepted total dependence on Krishna. This just means that Mahaprabhu accepted Vishnu Swami's particular realization on total dependence on Krishna.

 

I am very curious to know what the difference is between Vishnuswami's view on "total dependence" and the view of other Vaishnava commentators.

 

 

Mahaprabhu viewed His doctrine and that of Ramanuja as simultaneously one and different. He never saw Ramanuja as somehow flawed but accepted him as a great acarya.

 

Recognizing and praising a fellow bhagavata and pandit is always gracious. However, what in the world does it mean to say two views are "simultaneously one and different???" To me, that sounds like another way of saying, "I want to disagree with you even while agreeing with you, so please don't take issue with my disagreement."

 

 

It means a rigorous siddhantic proof that defeats Mayavada. Of course since we are talking about religious subject whether there is defeat or victory would be subjective.

 

There is nothing subjective about Sri Madhva's Brahma-sutra bhashya. There and in other works you will find the "rigorous siddhantic proof that defeats Mayavada."

[Beggar 0]

 

I am very curious to know what the difference is between Vishnuswami's view on "total dependence" and the view of other Vaishnava commentators.

I don't know either. There are definitely different views on dependence on the Lord. Should it be like a cat or a monkey?

 

 

Recognizing and praising a fellow bhagavata and pandit is always gracious. However, what in the world does it mean to say two views are "simultaneously one and different???" To me, that sounds like another way of saying, "I want to disagree with you even while agreeing with you, so please don't take issue with my disagreement."

Simultaneous, inconceivable oneness and difference or acintya bheda [a]bheda tattva is Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhus doctrine on the difference between the jiva and Bhagavan. It can also be said that everything existing is also bheda and abheda. Suddha-dvaita-vada, Visistadvaita-vada, Dvaitadvaita-vada and Acintya-bhedabheda-tattva all accept that devotion to Bhagavan is eternal.

 

 

There is nothing subjective about Sri Madhva's Brahma-sutra bhashya. There and in other works you will find the "rigorous siddhantic proof that defeats Mayavada."

The subjectivity I'm reffering to is whether a Mayavadi accepts this or not.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

 

Defeat is not a question of popularity. After the writings of Sri Ananda Tirtha there is hardly anything new or original that need be brought up to refute Advaita. However, that does not mean that people will not flock to Advaita if their own individual biases lead them in that direction. From Srimad Acharya's standpoint, all these philosophies including Advaita are all eternal - they exist to delude the jiva-atmas who are averse to surrendering to Sri Hari.

 

In Kali Yuga a philosophy can be defeated and still be very popular. People in general don't think very carefully about what they believe but instead follow whatever suits them. Take this forum and iskcon for instance. Do you think these people actually made a comparative study of different Vaishnava Vedanta commentaries before committing themselves to gaudiya vaishnavism? Of course not. They are mostly following whatever they follow for sentimental reasons and don't want to hear any doubts about their beliefs. It is just like that with Advaita also. Blind followers don't grant any tradition credibility.

 

This is a very insightful comment, raghu.

 

With regards to simultaneous oneness and differentiation, I like the example of light--it is both a wave and a particle (though some like to argue that it is a third thing exhibiting the poperties of both a wave and a particle--no analogy is perfect).

[shvu 1]

 

From Madhavacarya:

1) He accepted the complete destruction of mayavadism

Says who? Tattavada or Hare Krishnas? I am not aware of a Tattavada scholar announcing one morning that the destruction was "complete".

 

"Complete destruction" in any meaningful sense has past precedents and we are inclined to look back at these precedents to know what it entails. When Kumarila Bhatta slam-dunked Brahmins who had converted over to Buddhism and bought them back into the Brahmin fold, his victory would qualify as complete destruction as after his time, there is no record of the existence of Buddhist Brahmins to speak of. Later when Advaita battled Mimaamsa, their victory was complete too as even Nicholas cage after two National Treasure hunts would be hard pressed to locate a Mimaamsa Brahmin in India.

 

If complete destruction is viewed in the perspective of the above two defeats, then it is easy to see it does not apply for Advaita. It is also unbelievable that any Tattvavada scholar of repute would make such a sweeping announcement while from what we have seen of Gaudiya Vaishnavism thus far; it is easily believable that a Hare Krishna would make such a careless, inaccurate statement.

 

 

Mahaprabhu viewed His doctrine and that of Ramanuja as simultaneously one and different. He never saw Ramanuja as somehow flawed but accepted him as a great acarya.

 

But not great enough to be followed. From a practical perspective we have to question the greatness of an Acharya who is not good enough for us to follow.

 

The two basic premises of Mahaprabhu – Radha worship and the reversal of the Krishna avatar (Vishnu came from Krishna) – are summarily rejected by traditional Vaishnavism and specifically in this case by Ramanuja. Hence, any oneness between the two would be entirely imaginary and would be more a matter of convenience than anything else; much like Prabhupada finding it necessary to approve Jesus in the West to build his organization.

 

Cheers

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

...Do you think these people actually made a comparative study of different Vaishnava Vedanta commentaries before committing themselves to gaudiya vaishnavism? Of course not.

 

Generally bhaktas are attracted to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu because they have a hidden attraction in their heart for Sri Sri Radha Krsna, and Their madhurya rasa with parakiya bhava. For those who are attracted to Bala Gopal and vatsalya rasa, they will tend towards Madhvacarya's line (without Mahaprabhu). Each soul has an eternal relationship with the Lord in a particular rasa so different jivas will go here and there on their sojourn but will only feel inner peace and contentment when they arrive at their proper destination. This was shown by the story of the Gopa Kumar in Srila Santana Goswamipada's Brhat Bhagavatamrta Real spiritual life is not an intellectual exercise.

[shvu 1]

This may be inaccurate. I read on the internet a year ago that Iskcon population - at least in the US was dwindling. Even temple visitors were mostly Indian Hindus. Most Hindus are blissfully unaware of Iskcon's condescending views on Hinduism and visit their temples just as they would visit any other Krishna temple.

 

Spirituality and organized religion ae polar opposites. The latter is more akin to a corporate structure intent on increasing revenue and improving the bottomline. People get too involved in such activities to the point where they forget why they signed up in the first place. Most of their thoughts and time are expended in propoganda activities, developing the temple, bringing in more and more donations, etc., the results of which becomes the yardstick to measure their spiritual ability and progress. In my opinion, spirituality has gone out the window somewhere along the way.

 

Cheers

[Beggar 0]

 

 

Spirituality and organized religion ae polar opposites. The latter is more akin to a corporate structure intent on increasing revenue and improving the bottomline. People get too involved in such activities to the point where they forget why they signed up in the first place. Most of their thoughts and time are expended in propoganda activities, developing the temple, bringing in more and more donations, etc., the results of which becomes the yardstick to measure their spiritual ability and progress. In my opinion, spirituality has gone out the window somewhere along the way.

 

 

<tt>Sri Guru & His Grace

</tt>God Consciousness vs. Society Consciousness Devotee: Within a religious mission, sectarian policies may appear to bar the path of progress and pragmatic concerns take precedence over spiritual ideals. Should one risk leaving the formal institution or should he try to remain within and work out the problems?

Srila Sridhara Maharaja: Progress means elimination and new acceptance. So, when there is a clash between the relative and the absolute standpoint, the relative must be left aside, and the absolute accepted. The example is given of a socialist in a country of capitalists. When there is a clash, one will not express their creed for the sake of peace. But to maintain the purity of their faith for the socialists they will try to leave and join the socialists.

Higher Ideal

So, the absolute and the relative are two different classes of interest. And we find more importance in the absolute interest. We must be sincere to our own creed. The form is necessary to help me in a general way to maintain my present position. At the same time, my conception of the higher ideal will always goad me to advance, to go forward, and wherever I do, I must follow the greater model, the greater ideal. Spiritual life is progressive, not stagnant. We are in the stage of sadhana, and we want to go ahead, not backwards. The formal position will help me to maintain my present status, and my extraordinary affinity for the ideal will goad me towards the front. The search for Sri Krsna is dynamic and living, so adjustment and readjustment is always going on. And we should also change our present position accordingly, so that we may not have to sacrifice the high ideal for which we have come. Einstein had to leave Germany and go to America for his high ideal of life. And so many similar instances may be found in the world. The ideal is all in all. The highest ideal in a man is his highest jewel. Our most precious gem is our ideal.

Many things are recommended in the scriptures, but they are meant to promote us towards the truth in an indirect way (sva-dharme nidhanam sreya ). [bg 3.35] It is recommended at a certain stage that for the sake of our close friends, we should give up our ideal. But in the Bhagavad-gita, Krsna's final instruction is sarva dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja: "If it is necessary to maintain the highest ideal, you must give up your friends. Surrender to me. I am the real purport of the scriptures." The highest kind of idealists give up their country, their family, their friends, and everything else, but they can't give up their ideal.

In the Bhagavad-gita, [3.35] Krsna says, "It is better to die while performing one's duty that to try to do another's duty." That is one stage of understanding: the relative consideration. The absolute consideration is also given in the Bhagavad-gita: sarva dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja [bg. 18.66]. Krsna says, "Give up everything. Come to Me directly." This is the revolutionary way. This is absolute. And this is relative: "Stick to your own clan. Don't leave them." That is the national conception. There is nation consciousness and God consciousness; society consciousness and God consciousness. God consciousness is absolute. If society consciousness hinders the development of God consciousness, it should be left behind. This is confirmed in the Srimad-Bhagavatam (5.5.18):

<center> gurur na sa syat sva jano na sa syat

pita na sa syaj janani na sa syat

daivam na tat syan na patis ca sa syan

na mocayed yah samupeta mrtyum </center>

 

Even a spiritual master, relative, parent, husband, or demigod who cannot save us from repeated birth and death should be abandoned at once."

 

What to speak of ordinary things, even the guru, may have to be abandoned. One may even have to give up one's own spiritual guide, as in the case of Bali Maharaja, or one's relatives, as in the case of Vibhisana. In the case of Prahlada, his father had to be given up, and in the case of Bharata Maharaja, it was his mother. In the case of Khatvanga Maharaja, he left the demigods, and in the case of the yajna patnis, (the wives of the brahmanas ) they left their husbands in the endeavor to reach the Absolute Personality.

We need society only to help us. If our affinity to the society keeps us down, then that should be given up, and we must march on. There is the absolute consideration and the relative consideration. When they come into clash, the relative must be given up, and the absolute should be accepted. If my inner voice, my spiritual conscience decides that this sort of company cannot really help me, then I will be under painful necessity to give them up, and to run towards my destination, wherever my spiritual conscience guides me. Any other course will be hypocrisy, and it will check my real progress. If we are sincere in our attempt, then no one in the world can check us or deceive us; we can only deceive ourselves (na hi kalyana-krt kascid durgatim tata gacchati ) [bg. 6.40]. We must be true to our own selves, and true to the Supreme Lord. We must be sincere.

[raghu 2]

 

Generally bhaktas are attracted to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu because they have a hidden attraction in their heart for Sri Sri Radha Krsna, and Their madhurya rasa with parakiya bhava.

 

With all due respect to your beliefs, people can invent all sorts of arbitrary theories to explain why some people like them and others do not. Why do some people like gaudiya vaishnavism? Oh, they have secret attract in their heart for madhurya rasa. Why do some people get attracted to Tattvavada? Oh, they are dry speculators who like "intellectual exercise."

 

Says who?

 

Was Jayatirtha's devotion to the Lord any less than yours simply because he wrote a rigorous commentary on Srimad Ananda Tirtha's Brahma-sutra bhashya the likes of which iskcon people would likely be unable to comprehend?

 

And when a gaudiya vaishnava calls another Vaishnava by such labels as "fool,bigot," or "village idiot" for daring to disagree, even though that Vaishnava might be senior in terms of age or experience, then is that the logical result of the gaudiya vaishnavas having "hidden attraction in their heart for Sri Sri Radha Krsna, and Their madhurya rasa with parakiya bhava?" Please.

[Kulapavana 0]

 

One hundred years ago in British colleges in India, the word 'sectarian' did not have a strong pejorative connotation nor did the word 'cult'. Why don't you guys argue this subject in classical sanskrit and see what you come up with.

 

Sectarian is not a pejorative word in my book. Only in the modern times being "cosmopolitan", "non-sectarian", "truly objective", and other super-generic terms gained a cult status among "progressive" people. I do not mind being considered a "member of the Hindu sect of Gaudiya Vaishnavas". There is no way any religion can be truly non-sectarian.

 

What I object to is making bogus claims of being non-sectarian, while it is plain to every thinking person that we are simply just one of many Vaishnava sects. The Bahais are 10 times less sectarian than we are. So what? Like that is a real asset in the spiritual sense? I dont see it that way. but making bogus claims is just plain wrong and dishonest.

[theist 1]

 

This may be inaccurate. I read on the internet a year ago that Iskcon population - at least in the US was dwindling. Even temple visitors were mostly Indian Hindus. Most Hindus are blissfully unaware of Iskcon's condescending views on Hinduism and visit their temples just as they would visit any other Krishna temple.

 

Spirituality and organized religion ae polar opposites. The latter is more akin to a corporate structure intent on increasing revenue and improving the bottomline. People get too involved in such activities to the point where they forget why they signed up in the first place. Most of their thoughts and time are expended in propoganda activities, developing the temple, bringing in more and more donations, etc., the results of which becomes the yardstick to measure their spiritual ability and progress. In my opinion, spirituality has gone out the window somewhere along the way.

 

Cheers

 

Now you see the point. This has nothing to do with faulting those who consider themselves Hindus, but it has everything to do with those who compromise their spiritual masters teachings to get a buck just to keep up the infrastructure.

 

Better to sell the infrastructure and buy an old warehouse for some simple chanting and feasting parties and keep those teachings intact IMO.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

And when a gaudiya vaishnava calls another Vaishnava by such labels as "fool,bigot," or "village idiot" for daring to disagree, even though that Vaishnava might be senior in terms of age or experience, then is that the logical result of the gaudiya vaishnavas having "hidden attraction in their heart for Sri Sri Radha Krsna, and Their madhurya rasa with parakiya bhava?" Please.

We are discussing the ideal, not analyzing the misbehavior of kannistha's.

Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja said that many in Iskcon actually hate the idea of madhurya rasa. Srila Sridhar Maharaja said that many of the persons who Srila Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada gathered were not in fact, Gaudiya Vaisnavas. So, yes, what you are saying is a relative truth. But those who are really attracted to Mahaprabhu have some connection with madhurya in their hearts coming from their very eternal swaupa.

[Beggar 0]

 

Sectarian is not a pejorative word in my book. Only in the modern times being "cosmopolitan", "non-sectarian", "truly objective", and other super-generic terms gained a cult status among "progressive" people. I do not mind being considered a "member of the Hindu sect of Gaudiya Vaishnavas". There is no way any religion can be truly non-sectarian.

 

What I object to is making bogus claims of being non-sectarian, while it is plain to every thinking person that we are simply just one of many Vaishnava sects. The Bahais are 10 times less sectarian than we are. So what? Like that is a real asset in the spiritual sense? I dont see it that way. but making bogus claims is just plain wrong and dishonest.

How else can you preach to people who are dead against what they see as sectarianism especially when competing with advaita-vada impersonalists? The problem is when so-called experienced devotees cannot understand the difference between pravacan or preaching (making propaganda) and devotional truths, siddhanta. Many ISKCON devotees are not even aware that there is a difference.

[theist 1]

Being non-sectarian has nothing to do with which group superfically accepts the most number of other groups. The only non-sectarian religion in all of existence is sanatana-dharma or the eternal function of the soul to serve in relationship to the Supreme Lord.

 

Another name for this function is Vaisnavism. A realized Vaisnava will recognize this same urge of the soul to serve the Supreme Lord whereever it manifests itself. That may be in a Hindu form or a Christian or Islamic one it doesn't matter.

 

It may be that the Hindu or Christian is 95% covered over by other sectarian viewpoints but the awakened Vaisnava will recognize that other 5% as genuine religion and offer respect there even in those whose dress and traditions are different than his own.

 

This is ABC level and to hear those that have been reading Srila Prabhupada's books for years argue against this idea is bewildering and frustrating.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

This is ABC level and to hear those that have been reading Srila Prabhupada's books for years argue against this idea is bewildering and frustrating.

Sanatana dharma, Krsna's service, uttama bhakti, suddha bhakti and pure devotional service are all interchangeable terms.

 

Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja,

Srila Rupa Gosvami has given the best definition of bhakti:

anyabhilasita sunyam

jnana karmadi anavritam

anukulyena krsnanusilanam

bhaktir uttama

["The cultivation of activities that are meant exclusively for the pleasure of Sri Krsna, or in other words, the uninterrupted flow of service to Sri Krsna, performed through all endeavours of the body, mind and speech, and through the expression of various spiritual sentiments (bhavas), which is not covered by jnana (knowledge aimed at impersonal liberation) and karma (reward-seeking activity), and which is devoid of all desires other than the aspiration to bring happiness to Sri Krsna, is called uttama-bhakti, pure devotional service." (Sri Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu 1.1.11)]

 

 

Prema Prayojana Prabhu: Gurudeva has ordered me to give just the outline of this verse composed by Srila Rupa Gosvami by the inspiration of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. In his Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu he is giving the most excellent definition of uttama-bhakti, transcendental bhakti. It is the continuous unbroken cultivation of all the endeavors of your body, mind, words, and internal spiritual sentiments, which are meant exclusively for the pleasure of Krsna, totally devoid of any desires other than the desire to serve Krsna, not covered or mixed with karma, jnana, dry renunciation, yoga, astrology, and all other kinds of philosophies which are not conducive to bhakti.

 

 

 

Such endeavors should be like honey flowing from a jar. When we pour honey from a jar it does not come out in drops. It comes out in one think steam. When citta-vrtti, the tendency of the heart, along with the activities of the body, mind, and words, are flowing without any break in the service of Krsna, this is called uttama-bhakti.

 

 

 

 

 

Sanatana dharma is not just accepting "the philosophy".

 

[Kulapavana 0]

 

The problem is when so-called experienced devotees cannot understand the difference between pravacan or preaching (making propaganda) and devotional truths, siddhanta. Many ISKCON devotees are not even aware that there is a difference.

 

That was never explained to them. Still, I really doubt that the long term effects of "propaganda type" preaching (where siddhanta is compromised on purpose) are positive. There is a tremendous confusion among Prabhupada disciples precisely due to the acceptance of such tactics by their guru. On top of that, it created a precedent for all kinds of "end justifies the means" abuses.

 

Again, this is taking risks for the sake of preaching, and sometimes the risks are very, very real.

[Murali_Mohan_das 0]

Great discussion!

 

All I have to add is that it's dangerous, isn't it, to think oneself "senior" to anybody, either by years of experience or qualification?

 

A Vaishnava, so I am told, will never take personal offense, though they might come to the defense of another Vaishnava who is being attacked.

[raghu 2]

In response to the point I raised about many converts being attracted to gaudiya vaishnavism for reasons other than careful study of differing points of view, Shakti-Fan wrote "Generally bhaktas are attracted to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu because they have a hidden attraction in their heart for Sri Sri Radha Krsna, and Their madhurya rasa with parakiya bhava. For those who are attracted to Bala Gopal and vatsalya rasa, they will tend towards Madhvacarya's line (without Mahaprabhu)."

 

 

We are discussing the ideal, not analyzing the misbehavior of kannistha's.

 

No, I was quite clearly making the point that many people follow a religion for sentimental reasons and used two examples to illustrate this - (1) people who are taken with Advaita even though many rigorous philosophical treatises exist which refute it, and (2) people such as the iskcon members on this forum who hail gaudiya vaishnavaism as the purest expression of krishna-bhakti without knowing or even caring what other bhakti traditions have to say on the subject.

[matarisvan 0]

 

...(2) people such as the iskcon members on this forum who hail gaudiya vaishnavaism as the purest expression of krishna-bhakti without knowing or even caring what other bhakti traditions have to say on the subject.

 

I think they believe this because Prabhupada told them so. He had to dangle the following carrots or people like theist would not have cared about gaudiya vaishnavism

 

carrot #1: This is not Hinduism

carrot #2: Jesus has an exalted place in our tradition

carrot #3: This is the purest, most transcendental form of devotion. Or we are better than devotees from other traditions.

[theist 1]

Actually I grew up an atheist. So much for your stupid speculation.

[raghu 2]

Most "Christians" who joined iskcon (or at least the many I have met) were atheists or new-agers. That didn't stop them from being lured in by Jesus propaganda.

[theist 1]

 

Most "Christians" who joined iskcon (or at least the many I have met) were atheists or new-agers. That didn't stop them from being lured in by Jesus propaganda.

 

And again you continue to offer your worthless opinions on what happened far far away and 40 years ago as if anyone cares what you think. I was there and have my own perspective.