The Hindufication of ISKCON

April 9, 2005

Sound advise, perhaps you can learn to take that on board as well, do not mistake for one minute by belonging to an organization (that could be any) one has realized the self, be aware of extending the bodily attachment to an organization.

I dont know where you got the above idea...being attached to an organization that is promoting krsna consciousness is not different then Krsna. Krsna is non different then his name.

Precisely it is a society it comes in many shape and sizes with various degree of realization.

Equating America with Hindu does not bode well America is a country and Hindu is a religion, all you are trying to say is Iskcon is a better religion and all I am trying to say that neither can claim to be God.

I can make the same claim being a Hindu means it is a way of life following the shastra (many have come to change that but we still percivere) it is neither Iskcon or America conscious.

Hindu is not a religio or a way of life. Sanatan Dharma is. Hindu or Hinduism is not even mentioned in the sastra. Iskcon is promoting Sanatan Dharma. Nobody is saying iskcon is better then anything else. Krsna consciousness however(which is the original nature of the soul) is eternel and that is what Iskcon is promoting.

The self always remain unchanged, there is no fear of loosing the Identity, only our intense desire to enjoy through the medium of this body falsely identifying with it,binds us to this sansar. Any Hindu practicing the Dharma knows this fact, that you are not this body, it is not a monopoly of Iskcon. Neither knowing this fact makes one realized.

That is interesting, Most hindus I have met have no idea that they are not this body. To them its a foreign concept. They claim proudly that I practice hinduism and I am a hindu but are to busy with concerned about what cast they are. Nobody is claiming Monipoly. That is your false conception. Along with thinking that you are a hindu(which is the biggest misconception)

All this contradiction is your vivid imegination, I have not stated any thing about skin color or birth or being proud. Stop parroting as if to say you have realized the self.

I am attached to Hindu dharma, it teaches me how to lead my life from darkness to light, from mortal to immortal (tamso ma joytir gamaya, mrituma amrutam gamaya) that is my good Karma, yes shastra teaches us our birth is based on our karma which is in turn based on our desires.

Man, imagination is better then ignorance of your Dharma that is for sure. My Dharma is Sanatan Dharma with no bodily conceptions. Darkness is thinking you are this body. As Caitanya Mahaprabhu has said that I am not this body. You are right I have not realised the self but I have understood that I am not a hindu. That is thanks to the Bhagavad Gita.

I am not Dharma I follow it, Hindu is not a body it is a way of life, stop this preconcieved ideas drumed in to your head. Follow your dharma I will follow mine.

How long have you been Iskcon how long will you be Iskcon such questions are irrelevent.

following dharma but not understanding it is a waste of time. Krsna states Sarva Dharma Praritya Ja....ofcourse you should know that means that abandon all varities of dharma and surrender unto him right????? I was fortunate to come in contact with Prabhupads movement and learning I am not a hindu.

Yes my friend I do read Bhagvat Gita every day, so did my father and his father. They call us Hindu doing it.

I follow the Hindu dharma, In your eyes you see me as a Hindu, and you twist the words and misconstrue that to mean it is a body.You call it hodge podge to make you feel better.

Really? They call you Hindu if you read the bhagavad gita eh??? Wow can you tell me where in the Bhagavad Gita it states that if you read the Bhagavad Gita it means you are a hindu??? I would love to see the verse. Reading the Bhagavad Gita and understanding it are two different things. I am saying its Hodge Podge because it is Hodge Podge. Most of what the Hindu's do now are not even mentioned in the sastra. You can understand what I am saying if you surrender to Krsna. Krsna states as I have mentioned above but u failed to read it.....

...Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both. –Sri Krishna, Bhagavad-gita 2.16

You are not this body. Thinking you are a hindu and such is due to our misconception and false bodily identity. Totally ignorant.

Hare Krsna

April 10, 2005

RE

(I dont know where you got the above idea...being attached to an organization that is promoting krsna consciousness is not different then Krsna. Krsna is non different then his name.)

Sure Krishna is non different from his name but it is different from saying he is the organization.

Re

(Hindu is not a religio or a way of life. Sanatan Dharma is. Hindu or Hinduism is not even mentioned in the sastra. Iskcon is promoting Sanatan Dharma.)

Fine all those Hindus are non entity they follow nothing their way of life is meaning less, also their scrifice protecting what ever they protected was all in vain. Iskcon is the real thing even though they are also not mention in the shastra we will ignore that. After all they are promoting Krishna and in his name we will ligitmate anything and everything, well don’t let me spell that out.

RE

(Nobody is saying iskcon is better then anything else. Krsna consciousness however(which is the original nature of the soul) is eternel and that is what Iskcon is promoting.)

my dear fellow you are anything but promoting your organization.

((The self always remain unchanged, there is no fear of loosing the Identity, only our intense desire to enjoy through the medium of this body falsely identifying with it,binds us to this sansar. Any Hindu practicing the Dharma knows this fact, that you are not this body, it is not a monopoly of Iskcon. Neither knowing this fact makes one realized.))

Re

(That is interesting, Most hindus I have met have no idea that they are not this body. To them its a foreign concept. They claim proudly that I practice hinduism and I am a hindu but are to busy with concerned about what cast they are. Nobody is claiming Monipoly. That is your false conception. Along with thinking that you are a hindu(which is the biggest misconception))

Well I have met many who claim to be guy, which would be gross on the bodily platform. Should I form the opinion that iskcon is promoting gay? They also claim that they are iskcon.

No sir I follow Hindu dharma. You are simply putting word in my mouth, I know very well what I mean when I say I am a Hindu. You on other hand are simply busying your self promoting your group.

Re

(Man, imagination is better then ignorance of your Dharma that is for sure. My Dharma is Sanatan Dharma with no bodily conceptions. Darkness is thinking you are this body. As Caitanya Mahaprabhu has said that I am not this body. You are right I have not realised the self but I have understood that I am not a hindu. That is thanks to the Bhagavad Gita.)

What a realization, sad really come to think of it that, you have not realized the self but you have realized that you are not a Hindu, I could have told you that easily because no Hindu come across so self riotous as you do.

Re

(following dharma but not understanding it is a waste of time. Krsna states Sarva Dharma Praritya Ja....ofcourse you should know that means that abandon all varities of dharma and surrender unto him right????? I was fortunate to come in contact with Prabhupads movement and learning I am not a hindu.)

There was no need for Krishna to mention all the different Dharma, so context of surrendering is to be understood.

Good luck in your understanding.

Re

(Really? They call you Hindu if you read the bhagavad gita eh??? Wow can you tell me where in the Bhagavad Gita it states that if you read the Bhagavad Gita it means you are a hindu??? I would love to see the verse. Reading the Bhagavad Gita and understanding it are two different things. I am saying its Hodge Podge because it is Hodge Podge. Most of what the Hindu's do now are not even mentioned in the sastra. You can understand what I am saying if you surrender to Krsna. Krsna states as I have mentioned above but u failed to read it.....)

There you go again twisting what I mean, there is no need to debate with some one who thinks his good fortune was to realize that he is not a Hindu. Good luck sir I am happy where I am, your stand on hindu is misguided, and I don’t really care what you think.

Re

.(..Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both. –Sri Krishna, Bhagavad-gita 2.16)

Very nice now realize that and good luck.

Re

(You are not this body. Thinking you are a hindu and such is due to our misconception and false bodily identity. Totally ignorant.)

If only Hindu was meant to mean that you are a body then it would make sense, fortunately it is only your ignorance.

Hare Krsna

Jai Shree Krishna

April 10, 2005

Well, so far I havent found any acarya claiming to be hindu or anything. I understand you wont take my word for it but here is Srila Prabhupad on "hinduism"

Journalist: Is Krsna consciousness connected with any other religion? Does it derive from Hinduism or Buddhism?

Prabhupada: Yes, you can call it Hinduism, but actually it does not belong to any "ism." It is a science of understanding God. But it appears like Hindu religion. In that sense Buddha religion is also Hindu religion, because Lord Buddha was a Hindu and he started Buddha religion." Srila Prabhupada Room Conversation w/ Journalist, May 19, 75, Melbourne

"One should know his identification. At the present moment, identification is going on by the skin. "I am Indian,I am American." This is going on. But that is not our proper identification. The proper identification is aham brahmasmi: "I am spirit soul." This is to be understood in human form of life." Srila Prabhupada lecture, Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.6, May 24, 74, Rome Italy

Prabhupada: Yes, this Krsna consciousness movement is not a sentimental religious system. It is science and philosophy. The attempt is to awaken God consciousness. God is neither Christian nor Hindu nor Muslim. God is God. There may be angles of vision to approach God, but God is one. Therefore our attempt is that you become God conscious. Don't be limited by Christianism or Hinduism or Muhammadanism. So our formula is explained in the Srimad Bhagavatam. We have got the copies there. Sa vai pumsam paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhoksaje: "That is first-class religious system by which the followers become a lover of God." This is the, our formula." ~ Srila Prabhupada speaks to La Trobe University, Melbourne , July 1, 74

Prabhupada: No. Hinduism practically we do not recognize because this word "Hinduism" is not mentioned in any Vedic literature. It is a foreign term. The Muhammadans, they called the inhabitants of India as "Hindus." From that word, it is has come to "Hinduism." Otherwise, we don't find that word in any Vedic literature. "Hinduism" is a foreign term, it is not a Vedic term.

Reporter: Yes. The Krsna consciousness, its Vedic literature, they have some of the same books or also holy books for what we call Hindu religions, aren't they?

Prabhupada: Yes. Just try to understand, the inhabitants of India were called by the Muhammadans from Persia and other places, "Hindus.Hindus" means the resident on the other side of the River Indus. You have heard the name of River Indus. So they cannot pronounce it Indus, they say "Hindus." From "Hindus," it has become "Hindu." So actually the residents of India were called "Hindus." And generally, at least in, say, three thousand years ago, all the inhabitants of India were strictly followers of Vedic principles. After the advent of Lord Buddha, a different religious system developed. Otherwise, before Lord Buddha, there was all the... Not only in India, in other parts of the world. They were followers of Vedic principles. So in that sense, you can say if followers of Vedic principles are called Hindus, then before Lord Buddha, everyone was Hindu all over the world. Not that particular part of India. So far we have got historical reference from Mahabharata, Indo-European stock, they are also Hindus, the so-called Hindus, followers of Vedic principles. Yes. Gradually, they deviated. Just like recently there is division of Pakistan and India. Twenty years before, this Pakistan was part of India. Now, these Muhammadans, they did not come from outside. They changed their faith from Hindus to Muhammadans. Now they divided their property. Similarly, actually the whole planet was called Bharata-varsa. Gradually, people deviated from Vedic principles or imitated something else and they became different." Srila Prabhupada Interview w/ LA Times Reporter, Dec 26, 68, Los Angeles California

Pusta Krsna: There is one more question, Srila Prabhupada. Question 21. "Are changes visible in Hinduism in its doctrinal content, mode of individual and collective worship as a result of Hinduism's contact with the West?"

Prabhupada: Yes, they are worshiping... This is... First of all, you must forget that this Krsna consciousness movement is not Hinduism. It is Vaisnavism. Vaisnava means Visnu is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and one who loves Visnu or loves God, he is Vaisnava. So Hinduism is not like that. Present conception of Hinduism, they have got so many demigods. Demigods are there in the Vedas, but demigod worshipers, they are all materialistic persons. It is stated in the Bhagavad-gita that kamais tais tair hrta-jnanah yajanti anya-devatah. Those who are worshiper of demigods, they are lusty. Kamuka. And the kamuka platform is material world, lusty. Everyone is trying to enjoy sense gratification. So demigod worship is for sense gratification. If you worship Durga, then you pray, "Mother Durga, give me name, fame, wealth, good wife, and so on, so on." Dhanam dehi rupam dehi rupavati-bharyam dehi. Simply demanding for sense gratification. So that is not love of Godhead. That is to select one agent of God and exact from him as much as you can for your sense gratification. That is not recommended in the Vedic religion. Vedic religion, although there are demigods, but the ultimate is om tad visnoh paramam padam sada pasyanti surayah. Those who are suraya, actually advanced, they see to the Visnu paramam padam. Visnor aradhanam param. The worship of Visnu is the supreme worship. So actually everyone should be worshiper of Visnu. And that is Vaisnavism. So Vaisnavism means for everyone or sanatana dharma. That I have already explained.The human.... The living entity is sanatana. Mamaivamso jiva-bhutah jiva-loke sanatana. He is sanatana. God is sanatana. The exchange between God and the living entity is called sanatana-dharma or Vaisnavism. So we are teaching that. We are not teaching Hinduism, Muslimism, Christianism. We are teaching how to love God. That's all. There is no question of proselytization. It is the natural. We are, by nature we are lover of God. Just like father and son. The love is already there. It cannot be extinguished. The father and son may be separated for many, many years, but when they come together the affection immediately revives. So we are teaching that, that we have got eternal relationship with God and revive it. We are embarassed by establishing artificial relationship with my family, country, and society, and so-called religions. These are all artificial. Real relationship, that "God is great and I am His servant," that is real religion. So we are teaching that thing." Srila Prabhupada Answer to Questions from Bhavan's Journal, June 28, 76, Vrndavana India

"Hinduism means a type of faith, or Muslimism is type of faith. But... As it is described in the English dictionary, religion means a kind of faith. But it is not that type of religion. It is a compulsory fact. Just like sugar is, compulsorily must become, sweet. If sugar is not sweet, that is not real sugar. Chili is not hot; that is not real chili. Similarly, we are part and parcel of Krsna. Our duty is to become Krsna conscious. There is no question of faith. It is not the question of faith. You may have faith in Hinduism; tomorrow you may have faith in Christianism. Or you may have faith in Christianism, tomorrow in Mohammedan. This kind of faith is not Krsna consciousness. It is a compulsory. Compul... Just like laws of the state. It is not that it is meant for the Hindus, or for the Muslims, for the Christian. It is meant for everyone.

Similarly, mamaivamso jiva-bhutah. We are part and parcel of Krsna, so it is compulsory to revive our consciousness that we are part and parcel of Krsna. It is not a question of faith. Faith you may accept or do not accept but here it is a question of "must." You must revive your Krsna consciousness; otherwise you will suffer." SP Lecture, Madras, BG 3.27, Jan 1, 1976

"So Krsna said that dharma-samsthapanarthaya sambhavami yuge yuge. Then what is that dharma? He did not come here to reestablish Hinduism or Muslimism or Christianism. No. He came to give you real dharma. What is that? Sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja. That is dharma, to surrender unto Krsna: "Krsna, I am eternally Your servant. I forgot You. Now I come to my senses. I surrender unto You." This is dharma. Bahunam janmanam ante jnanavan mam prapadyate. This sense, real sense, comes when after struggling, struggling for many, many births, one becomes wise. Bahunam janmanam ante jnanavan. Jnanavan means wise.Srila Prabhupada lecture, Bhagavad Gita 13.13, Bombay India, Oct 6, 73

"Bhagavata-dharma does not restrict pure devotees to the Hindu community. A pure devotee is above a brahmana; therefore it is not incompatible to offer the sacred thread to devotees in Europe, America, Australia, Japan, Canada, and so on. Sometimes these pure devotees, who have been accepted by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, are not allowed to enter certain temples in India. Some high-caste brahmanas and gosvamis refuse to take prasada in the temples of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Actually this is against the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Devotees can come from any country, and they can belong to any creed or race. On the strength of this verse, those who are actually devotees and followers of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu must accept devotees from all parts of the world as pure Vaisnavas. They should be accepted not artificially but factually. One should see how they are advanced in Krsna consciousness and how they are conducting Deity worship, sankirtana and Ratha-yatra. Considering all these points, an envious person should refrain from malicious atrocities." SP, Caitanya Caritamrta, MadyaLila 25.120 P

"So here Krsna came to establish this fact, that "You are neither Roman, nor Indian nor brahmana nor sudra. You are My eternal servant. Therefore give up all this nonsense identification." Sarva-dharman parityajya. Because due to your wrong identification, you have created so-called "isms:" Hinduism, Muhammadanism, nationalism, this "ism," that "ism." This is all nonsense. This is the understanding of religion. Whatever we have created with the bodily concept of life, they are all nonsense. The real religion is that "I am eternal servant of Krsna." That is real religion." Srila Prabhupada lecture, Srimad Bhagavatam 1.2.6, May 24, 74, Rome Italy

"If one advocates the Hindu religion, the Muslim religion, the Christian religion, this religion or that religion, there will be conflicts. History shows that followers of religious systems without a clear conception of God have fought with one another. There are many instances of this in human history, but systems of religion that do not concentrate upon service to the Supreme are temporary and cannot last for long because they are full of envy. " SB 6. 16. 41

"Therefore Sanatana dharma does not refer to any sectarian process or religion. It is the eternal function of the eternal living entities in relationship with the Supreme Lord. Sanatana dharma refers, as stated previously, to the eternal occupation of the living entity. Sripada Ramanujacarya has explained the word sanatana as "that which has neither beginning nor end' so when we speak of sanatana dharma we must take it for granted, on the authority of Sripada Ramanujacarya that it has neither beginning nor end." BG Intro

"It should be noted that Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu never acknowledged the stereotyped caste system by birthright; rather, He strictly followed the verdict of the sastras in the matter of one's svarupa, or real identity." ~ S.B. 1.2.13 Purport

"People are after dharma, artha, kama and moksa. Generally they perform religious activities to achieve some material gain, and they engage in material activities for sense gratification. After being frustrated in material sense gratification, one wants to become liberated and become one with the Absolute Truth. These four principles form the transcendental path for the less intelligent. Those who are actually intelligent engage in Krishna Consciousness, not caring for these four principles of the transcendental method. They at once elevate themselves to the transcendental platform which is above liberation. Liberation is not a very great achievement, to say nothing of the ritualistic performances in religion, economic development or the materialistic life of sense gratification. Devotees do not care for these. They are always situated on the transcendental platform of the brahma-buta stage of self-realization." SB 3.2.36

"And what is dharma? What is religion? Perhaps you'll remember that the translation in the English language, dharma is a description of certain kind of faith, but according to Vedic literature, dharma is not a kind of faith. Faith can be changed but dharma cannot be changed. This point we have already explained." SP BG Lecture 1966

"Instead of accepting a temporary occupational duty based on the material body, one should take to the process of Sanatana-dharma, or bhakti yoga, so that he can put an end to this perpetual bondage in material bodies and return home, back to Godhead." SB 4. 28. 61

"In Bhagavad-gita Krsna informs us of the original dharma and asks us to give up all kinds of religious principles. The real dharma is surrender unto Him." SB 4.24. 42

"Bhakti, devotional service, is paro dharma, transcendental dharma, it is not material dharma." SB 6. 2. 26

April 10, 2005

Hinduism or any bodily designation is an Upadhi.

Funny, how being a hindu you never mentioned Krsna. Ofcourse why would u being so attached being Hindu which has nothing to do with Krsna.

So that activity and karmis' activity, there is difference. The karmi's activity is on upadhi. "I am American,I am Indian,I am Hindu,I am Muslim,I am Christian." With this upadhi, we are acting. But bhakti means without upadhi. Sarvopadhi-virnirmuktam. Activity without upadhi. Working not as American. Working not as Indian. Working not as Hindu. Working not as Muslim. That is sarvopadhi-vinirmuktam tat-paratvena nirmalam. If we think that "I am Christian,I am Hindu,I am American," that is with upadhi. When we purely think that "We are...," or "I am servant of Krsna. My only business is to satisfy Krsna," that activity is called bhakti. If I become interested in some party, that is not... Sometimes people criticize these American and European devotees, that they think that "They are American devotee; we are Hindu devotee. There is difference." This is not bhakti-marga. This is upadhi. Why you should think yourself as Hindu? Why you should think of others who have come from America as American? That is less intelligent. Krsna-bhakta... Vaisnave jati-buddhih. If one thinks of Vaisnava as belonging to this class, this nation, he has no vision. Naraki. That is called naraki-buddhih. Vaisnave jati-buddhih arcye siladhir gurusu nara-matir vaisnave jati-buddhih. If we think the Deity as made of stone and made of wood, arcye sila-dhir; gurusu, nara-matih, if we accept spiritual master as ordinary human being; vaisnave jati-buddhih, and if we take a Vaisnava as belonging to America or Europe or India... No. They are transcendental. Neither the Deity in the temple is stone, neither the spiritual master is ordinary human being, nor the Vaisnava belongs to any caste. This vision is perfect vision. When you come to this vision, that is bhakti. Tat-paratvena nirmalam. A bhakta has to become purified.

Thats it for me. I hope you luck in being a hindu in this life, next life who knows what you will be.

April 10, 2005

Your ignorance is to put Hinduism in the same bracket as bodily designation. You have an agenda and that is your upadhi.

Non of us are free from upadhi as long as we reside in this temporary material body.

Hinduism teaches me amongst many other things vairagya so if I am attached to Hindu may be one day I learn to give up. Thanks for your concerned for my next life, It is being mapped out how I lead my present life and yes that is what Hindu Dharma also teaches me, so let that be my upadhi.

Jai Shree Krishna

April 10, 2005

"Your ignorance is to put Hinduism in the same bracket as bodily designation"

in hinduism you find simultaneously that krsna is supreme,you find that krsna is maya, you find that everything is maya..

if it was a real dharma there were not such discrepances

so being not a real dharma, hinduism is a bodily designation

simple..

April 10, 2005

"in hinduism you find simultaneously that krsna is supreme,you find that krsna is maya, you find that everything is maya..if it was a real dharma there were not such discrepances so being not a real dharma, hinduism is a bodily designation

simple.."

Not only is that a play on words it is also another attempt in this thread to denegrate Hinduism. You know for a fact that Hinduism is a collection of different viewpoints and everyone who belong to those viewpoints think their own is "real Dharma". You speak of discrepencies like it is only found in Hinduism - look thru 90% of the threads in this forum and you will find such conflicts within ISKCON also - not that i think they actually are conflicts (i believe they are just lack of understanding on our part). I myself have a deep respect for Srila Prabhupada but i do think this whole "i am hindui am Vaishnava" has got entirely out of hand.

In the end of the day, who the hell cares? If a self-professed Hindu loves Krsna and a self-professed member of ISKCON loves Krsna, will Krsna see the difference? What is your opinion on this, please?

G.

muralidhar_das · April 10, 2005

The devotees of Sri Chaitanya were known as "Hindus", 500 years ago.

My aspiration is that in my next lifetime I might be born as a Hindu in some world where Sri Chaitanya displays his lila.

CC A-di 17.192: ".. all the meat-eaters, hearing that there would be unrestricted congregational chanting in the city, came to submit a petition to the Kazi, the Muslim magistrate.

CC A-di 17.193: "'The religion of the Hindus has increased unlimitedly. There are always vibrations of "Hari! Hari!" We do not hear anything but this.'

CC A-di 17.194: "One meat-eater said, 'The Hindus say, "Krishna, Krishna," and they laugh, cry, dance, chant and fall on the ground, smearing their bodies with dirt.

CC A-di 17.195: "'Vibrating "Hari, Hari," the Hindus make a tumultuous sound. If the king [pa-tasa-ha] hears it, certainly he will punish you.'

CC A-di 17.196: "I then inquired from these yavanas, 'I know that these Hindus by nature chant "Hari, Hari."

CC A-di 17.197: "'The Hindus chant the name Hari because that is the name of their God. But you are Muslim meat-eaters. Why do you chant the name of the Hindus' God?'

CC A-di 17.198: "The meat-eater replied, 'Sometimes I joke with the Hindus. Some of them are called Krishnada-sa, and some are called Ra-mada-sa.

CC A-di 17.199: "'Some of them are called Haridasa. They always chant "Hari, Hari," and thus I thought they would steal the riches from someone's house.

CC A-di 17.200: "'Since that time, my tongue also always vibrates the sound "Hari, Hari." I have no desire to say it, but still my tongue says it. I do not know what to do.'

CC A-di 17.201-202: "Another meat-eater said, 'Sir, please hear me. Since the day I joked with some Hindus in this way, my tongue chants the Hare Krishna hymn and cannot give it up. I do not know what mystic hymns and herbal potions these Hindus know.'

April 11, 2005

If seems to me that ISKCON is more than wiloing to become 'Hinduifed' if it suits them financially for example Krishna Culture a self-proclaimed Gaudiya Vaisnava catalogue sells sai baba deities http://www.krishnaculture.com/cgi-bin/miva?Merchant2/merchant.mv+Screen=PROD&Store_Code=KC&Product_Code=K13&Category_Code=PMURT

theist · April 11, 2005

That is really disturbing. Haven't bought from Krsna culture in a long time. I don't need anymore of their cataloges for the future either.

You know that kind of thing I don't even think twice about from an ordinary Hindu/Indian shop but from Prabhupada's disciples it gives off an unwholesome odor.

Just my opinion.

April 11, 2005

Correct me if I am wrong, but did ISKCON not enlist the help of the wider HINDU community to sustain Bhaktivedanta Manor as a place of worhsip??

If they did not identify themselves as HINDU why take advantage of the HINDU title...

Perhaps another case of where ISKCON is 'Hindu' when its suits them or when its to their advantage.

Bigotry.

Jay Shri Krshna

Prahlad

April 11, 2005

"Perhaps another case of where ISKCON is 'Hindu' when its suits them or when its to their advantage.

Bigotry"

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let's stop this bickering and hacking at each other - discussion is ok, but hacking at each other is something different. I am Hindu but feel connected to HK movement (tho i'm not part of ISKCON) and it's doubly hurtfult for me coz it hurts when an HK hacks at a Hindu and hurts when a Hindu hacks at an HK /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Let us continue to DISCUSS amicably - not throw names at each other.

G.

April 11, 2005

"What is your opinion on this, please?"

the discussion was if Hindu is a bodily designation..

vaishnava is not a bodily designation because it means worshiper of vishnu

iskcon or gaudya math are not bodily designation because they mean krsna consciousness and chaitanya consciousness

hindu mean simultaneously worshipper of krsna and offender of krsna

if a hindu worships krsna he is a vaishnava, krsna conscious, chaitanya conscious and so on..

at the present state of situation hindu means simply: "indian-not muslim-not sikh-not jain-not buddhist-not christian"

--

" You know for a fact that Hinduism is a collection of different viewpoints and everyone who belong to those viewpoints think their own is "real Dharma"

so if there's no agreement on the essential dharma hinduism is everything but a religion

theist · April 12, 2005

If you questioned Gaura Purnima mixed with Holi this may really freak you out.

-------------------------

Alachua Gaura-Purnima and Golf Tournament

The 1st annual "Krishna Cup" was won by Bhutatma das of Irvine, California, on the weekend of Gaura-Purnima in Alachua, Florida.

The Krishna Cup trophy goes to the devotee with the best score in a 36-hole golf tournament sponsored by Arjuna das, a PGA pro from Canada. We had a great weekend, beginning with the excellent devotional celebration of Sri Caitanya's Appearance Day. The devotees participating in the tournament began with kirtan, Bhagavatam class, and prasad. A spirited competition lasting two days followed. The rainy weather cleared just in time for the scheduled event.

Arjuna das reminded us of Arjuna himself, showing his extremely accurate professional skills by scoring even par from the black tees on difficult courses. Arjuna was exempted from winning the competition, however, in all fairness. Bhutatma Prabhu, a college professor and excellent athlete coached by Srila Prabhupada himself in exercise, shot two rounds in the 70s to hold off a late charge by Guru das of Denver, who turned in a great 78 on the final Sunday. Nalinikanta das of Alachua took third, followed by Janaka Prabhu from Denver and Mahavira das from Florida.

We were happy to host several other devotees, including local GBC man Sesa Prabhu, who played impressively despite being so absorbed in devotional services that he had little time to prepare.

Bhutatma will hold the trophy for a while, but many others, buoyed by the devotional association and competition, are threatening a challenge, either in the western swing of the "tour" in LA in late October, or at Gaura-Purnima next year in Alachua. Devotees of all skill levels are welcome to stay in touch and to participate. Hare Krishna!

April 12, 2005

Re

("What is your opinion on this, please?")

Bias, depending on what angle one looks at

Re

the discussion was if Hindu is a bodily designation.

vaishnava is not a bodily designation because it means worshiper of vishnu

iskcon or gaudya math are not bodily designation because they mean krsna consciousness and chaitanya consciousness)

By making statements it does not transport any one on to a spiritual plane, study shastra take guidance and stick to your path, you will get there.

Re

(hindu mean simultaneously worshipper of krsna and offender of krsna)

Krishna can not be offended

Check out Bhagvat Gita never mind other Vedic shastra, Bg.3.11,8.13,9.15 this are some of the verses that affirms different path some follow.

Re

(at the present state of situation hindu means simply: "indian-not muslim-not sikh-not jain-not buddhist-not christian")

Here lie your biggest mistake Indian means citizen of India. You can not be taken seriously for any thing you say, all this is a game to you.

" You know for a fact that Hinduism is a collection of different viewpoints and everyone who belong to those viewpoints think their own is "real Dharma"

Re

(so if there's no agreement on the essential dharma hinduism is everything but a religion )

Hinduism is way of life so in that sense it is not a religion but much more, it maps out paths laid in the shastra, it does not impose, just as Krishna says now do as you please. How can you love any thing or anyone if you are forced?

Jai Shree Krishna

April 12, 2005

Re

("What is your opinion on this, please?")

Bias, depending on what angle one looks at

That's not an answer. What bias? What angles?

April 12, 2005

Try This angle

The ignorant, not the wise, consider Karma-Samnyasa and Karma-yoga as different from each other. The person who has truly mastered one, gets the benefits of both. (5.04)

Whatever goal a Samnyasi reaches, a Karma-yogi also reaches the same goal. One who sees the path of renunciation and the path of work as the same, really sees. (See also 6.01 and 6.02) (5.05)

Chapter 9. The Most Confidential Knowledge

TEXT 15

jnana-yajnena capy anye

yajanto mam upasate

ekatvena prthaktvena

bahudha visvato-mukham

TRANSLATION

Others, who are engaged in the cultivation of knowledge, worship the Supreme Lord as the one without a second, diverse in many, and in the universal form.

But those who worship the imperishable, the undefinable, the unmanifest, the omnipresent, the unthinkable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the eternal Brahman; (12.03)

Restraining all the senses, even minded under all circumstances, engaged in the welfare of all creatures, they also attain Me. (12.04)

Self-realization is more difficult for those who fix their mind on the formless Brahman, because the comprehension of the unmanifest Brahman by the average embodied human being is very difficult. (12.05)

But, to those who worship Me as the personal God, renouncing all actions to Me; setting Me as their supreme goal, and meditating on Me with single minded devotion; (12.06)

Jai Shree Krishna

April 13, 2005

Anyways, you people have been arguing forever, i guess that is the nature of Kaliyuga.

oh...did you happen to look up the verse where it defines "hinduism"

I wonder what happened with the other fellow.

Jai Guru and Guaranga. Hare Krsna

April 13, 2005

The modern word "Hinduism" is a term developed approximately 700 years ago by the Muslim invaders of India. There was a river by the name Sindhu, which was mispronounced by the invaders as Hindu. All people living beyond that river, regardless of their religious beliefs, were called as Hindus. Thus some may mistakenly conclude that it is possible to trace out the historical origins of the ancient religion of India based on the historical use of this word.

We should know that in the ancient "Hindu" scriptures we will not find the word Hindu mentioned even a single time, but instead we will find the words sanatana-dharma (eternal religion), vaidika-dharma (religion of the Vedas), bhagavata-dharma (religion of God), etc.

muralidhar_das · April 13, 2005

I really can't understand why some devotees want to abuse "Hinduism" when Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami himself said the devotees of Mahaprabhu who danced with him in his sankirtan are the Hindus. It is there in Chaitanya Charitamrta Adi 17.192-202

krsna · April 13, 2005

Syncretism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Syncretism is the attempt to reconcile disparate, even opposing, beliefs and to meld practices of various schools of thought. It is especially associated with the attempt to merge and analogize several originally discrete traditions, especially in the theology and mythology of religion, and thus assert an underlying unity.

Syncretism is also common in literature, music, the representational arts and other expressions of culture. (Compare the concept of eclecticism.)

Social and political roles

Overt syncretism in folk belief is a sign of cultural acceptance of an alien or previous tradition, but the "other" cult may survive or infiltrate without authorized syncresis nevertheless. An example is the fact that some Conversos developed a sort of cult for martyrs who were victims of the Spanish Inquisition, thus incorporating elements of Catholicism while resisting it.

Some religious movements through history have embraced overt syncretism, while others have strongly rejected it as devaluing precious and genuine distinctions. The adoption of Shinto elements by Buddhism is an example of the former; post-Exile Judaism and Islamism are examples of the latter.

Syncretism tends to facilitate coexistence and constructive interaction between different cultures, a factor that has recommended it to rulers of multi-ethnic realms. Conversely the rejection of syncretism, usually in the name of "piety" and "orthodoxy", helps generate and authorize a sense of cultural unity.

Origin of the word

The word Syncretism is first attested in English in 1618 and is derived from modern Latin syncretismus, drawing on Greek συγκρητισμός (synkretismos), meaning "a union of communities".

The word occurs in Plutarch's (1st century AD) essay on "Fraternal Love" in his Moralia (2.490b). He cites the example of the Cretans who were reconciliated in their differences and came together in alliance when faced with external dangers. "And that is their so-called Syncretism." The word is a compound of syn "together" and a second element of uncertain origin. Rather than directly referring to Crete, it could be connected with kretismos "a lie", from kretizein "to lie like a Cretan", or alternatively it could be connected to kerannumi "to mix", krasis "mixture".

The Latin word, used in the modern sense, was probably coined by Erasmus in his Adagia ("Adages"), published in the winter of 1517–1518, to designate the coherence of dissenters in spite of their difference of theological opinions. In a letter to Melancthon, April 22, 1519, Erasmus specifically adduced the Cretans of Plutarch, an example of his adage "Concord is a mighty rampart."

Syncretism in Ancient Greece

Syncretism was an essential feature of Greek paganism. Hellenistic culture in the age that followed Alexander the Great was itself syncretic, essentially a blend of Persian, Anatolian, Egyptian (and eventually Etruscan-Roman) elements within a Hellenic overall formula. The Egyptian god Amun developed as the Hellenized Zeus Ammon after Alexander the Great went into the desert to seek out Amun's oracle at Siwa.

These identifications derive from the Hellenic habit of identifying gods of disparate mythologies with their own. When the proto-Greeks whose language would evolve into Greek first arrived in the Aegean and mainland Greece early in the 2nd millennium BCE, they found localized nymphs and divinities already connected with every important feature of the landscape: mountain, grove, cave and spring all had their locally-venerated deity. The countless epithets of the Olympian gods reflect this syncretic character. "Zeus Molossos", as worshiped only at Dodona, is "the god identical to Zeus as worshipped by the Molossians at Dodona." Much apparently arbitrary and trivial mythic fabling is the result of later mythographers' attempts to explain these obscure epithets.

Syncretism in Rome

The Romans, identifying themselves as common heirs to a very similar civilization, identified Greek deities with similar figures in the Etruscan-Roman tradition, though cult practices were not usually copied. (For details, see Similarities between Roman, Greek, and Etruscan mythologies.) Syncretic gods of the Hellenistic period found also wide favor in Rome: Serapis, Isis, Mithras are syncretic deities. Cybele, as she was worshiped in Rome, was essentially a syncretic goddess. The Greek god Dionysus was imported into Rome as Bacchus, and the Anatolian Sabazios was converted to the Roman Sabazius.

The correspondences varied: Jupiter is perhaps a better match for Zeus than say the rural huntress Diana is for the feared Artemis. Ares is not quite Mars. The Anatolian goddess Cybele was physically imported to Rome from her Anatolian cult center Pessinos in the original aniconic archaic stone idol; she was identified in Rome as Magna Mater and was given a matronly, iconic image that had been developed in Hellenistic Pergamum.

Likewise, when the Romans encountered Celts and Teutons, they mingled these Northern gods with their own, creating Apollo Sucellos (Apollo the Good Smiter) and Mars Thingsus (Mars of the war-assembly), among many others. In the Germania, the Roman historian Tacitus speaks of Teutonic worshippers of Hercules and Mercury; most modern scholars conclude that Hercules was likely Thor, and Mercury was Odin.

Syncretism in Christianity

Nascent Christianity appears to have incorporated many Pagan elements. Many scholars agree to this syncretism in principle, though any specific example is likely to be labeled "controversial". Open Theists (a subset of Protestant Evangelicals) assert that Christianity by the 3rd and 4th centuries had incorporated Greek Philosophy into its understanding of God.

"Syncretism" was not on the table when Christianity split into East and West rites during the Great Schism. It was invoked however with the rifts of the Protestant Reformation, with Desiderius Erasmus's readings of Plutarch. In 1615 David Pareus of Heidelberg urged Christians to a "pious syncretism" in opposing Antichrist, but few 17th century Protestants discussed the compromises that might affect a reconciliation with the Catholic Church: the Lutheran G. Calisen "Calixtus" (1586-1656) was ridiculed by Calovius (1612-1685) for his "syncretism."

The modern celebrations of Christmas (originating from Pagan Yule holidays) and Halloween are examples of relatively late Christian syncretism. Roman Catholicism in Central and South America has also integrated a number of elements derived from indigenous cultures in those areas.

Syncretism in Islam

The Druzes integrated elements of Ismaili Islam with Gnosticism and Platonism. Their practice of disguising themselves as followers of the dominant religion makes difficult to ascertain what is believed and what simulated. Several of the Jewish Messiah claimants like Jacob Frank and the donmeh ended mixing Cabalistic Judaism with Christianism and Islam. Sikhism blends Hinduism and Islam and was notably supported by the Mughal emperor Akbar, who wanted to consolidate the diverse religious communities in his empire.

Syncretism in the Caribbean

The process of syncretism in the Caribbean region is often referred to as creolization. The term creole is used to describe anyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, that was born and raised in the region. The shared histories of the Caribbean islands include long periods European Imperialism (mainly by Spain, France and Britain), the importation of African slaves (primarily from Central and Western Africa), and the domination of the sugar industry across the region. The influences of each of the above on the islands, in varying degrees were woven together producing the fabric of society that exists today in the Caribbean. The Rastafarian religion, founded in Jamaica, is highly syncretic, mixing elements from the Bible, Marcus Garvey's Back-to-Africa movement and Caribbean culture.

Syncretism in the Enlightenment

The modern, rational non-pejorative connotations began with Denis Diderot's Encyclopédie articles, Eclecticisme and Syncrétistes, Hénotiques, ou Conciliateurs. Diderot portrayed syncretism as the concordance of eclectic sources.

Modern syncretic religions

Recently developed religious systems that exhibit marked syncretism include the New World religions Candomblé, Vodun, and Santería, which analogize various Yorùbá and other African gods to the Roman Catholic pantheon of saints. Some sects of Candomblé have incorporated also Native American gods, and Umbanda combined African deities with Kardecist spiritualism. Unitarian Universalism is an example of a modern syncretic religion, which traces its roots to Universalist and Unitarian congregations. Not all syncretism is embraced: scholars of comparative religion may see syncretic elements in Bahá'í, for example, while the adherents of Bahá'í deny any syncretic influence. See Bahá'í Faith.

In Vietnam, Caodaism blends elements of Buddhism, Catholicism and Kardecism. Among new Japanese religions several syncretic religious movements such as Konkokyo, and Seicho-No-Ie have been founded starting with latter half of the 19th century up to present time.

Examples of strongly-syncretist Romantic and modern movements include mysticism, occultism, theosophy, astrology, and the New Age movement, and in the arts the eclectic aspects in postmodernism. The Rastafarian religion is also syncretic, derived from a blend of Judaic ideology and a more secular one of emancipation.

krsna · April 13, 2005

Are Hindu reformists Hindus?

The historical and legal definition of “Hindus” as “Indian Pagans” is clear-cut, easy to use, and it has the law and historical primogeniture on its side. This inclusive definition of Hinduism is eagerly used by Hindu nationalist organizations (usually in its Savarkarite “Hindutva” adaptation), but there is still a serious problem with it: a number of the people included object to the label “Hindu”. Indeed, this label is often in conflict with the self-descriptions of certain communities, particularly among the Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs and some of, the Scheduled Tribes.

An obvious choice for a definition could have been: “Is Hindu, he who calls himself a Hindu”. But history decided otherwise: no Hindu called himself a Hindu when the term was first applied by the Muslim invaders. The converse definition: “is non-Hindu, he who calls himself a non-Hindu”, was also not favoured by history: the British census policies overruled the self-description of many Sikhs and tribals as “Hindus” and forced them into newly created non-Hindu categories of “Sikh” and “animist” against their explicit wishes.

Today, eventhough the term Hindu has gained wide acceptance as a self-description, it is still an ill-fitting garment. Within the Sikh and Jain communities, there is discussion about the question: “Are we Hindus?” Self-definition will be only one factor considered in the following discussion of the Hindu or non-Hindu identity of some borderline cases, along with the several sets of criteria which we have come across in the preceding chapters.

6.1. The Ramakrishna Mission’s conversion

The label “Hindu” is very unpopular. Both in its traditional and in its activist incarnation, Hinduism has been getting a bad press: the former is attacked as the ultimate in social injustice (caste, self-immolation of widows etc.), the latter as fanatical and dangerous to the minorities. Moreover, being a Hindu brings material disadvantages: Hindu organizations active in the field of education may find their institutions taken over by State Governments, a take-over against which minority institutions are protected by Article 30 of the Constitution, esp. Art. 30.(1): “All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.”

One such Hindu organization threatened in its educational project is the Ramakrishna Mission, founded by Swami Vivekananda. To protect itself against such takeovers by the West Bengal Government, the Ramakrishna Mission itself approached the Calcutta High Court in 1980 to have “Ramakrishnaism” declared a non-Hindu religion which is, moreover, a minority religion.1 The opposite position, that the Ramakrishna Mission has always been and still is a representative and servant of Hinduism was upheld not only by the materially interested West Bengal Government, but also by lay members of the Ramakrishna Mission itself (who had joined the Mission for no other reason than that they wanted to work for Hinduism), and especially by the teachers at Vivekananda Centenary College, Rahara, District of 24 Parganas. The latter had started a trade-unionist agitation, supported by the Communist Party (Marxist), against the college management, and their demands would have to be met unless the college was a minority institution, which has far greater freedom in selection and recruitment (including lay-off) of personnel.

RK Mission sympathizers like Abhas Chatterjee and Ram Swarup had no problem in proving that Swami Vivekananda, representative of Hinduism at the World . of Religions (Chicago 1893), had established the Mission as an instrument for rejuvenating and propagating Hinduism.2 Ram Swarup replies to those who take Vivekananda’s optimistic belief in a “universal religion” for a goodbye to Hinduism: “Vivekananda believed in a universal religion, but to him it was not an artificial product made up of quotations culled from various scriptures, the current idea of universal religion. To him, it already existed in the form of Vedânta, which alone I can be the universal religion in the world, because it teaches principles and not persons’.”3 Whatever else Vivekananda may have been, he was certainly a Hindu.

6.2. Ramakrishna’s experiments

The central argument of the RK Mission for its non-Hindu character was that, unlike Hinduism, it upheld the “equal truth of all religions” and the “equal respect for all religions”. The latter slogan was popularized by Mahatma Gandhi as sarva-dharma-samabhâva, a formula officially approved and upheld in the BJP’s constitution.4 In 1983, RK Mission spokesman Swami Lokeshwarananda said: “Is Ramakrishna only a Hindu? Why did he then worship in the Christian and Islamic fashions? He is, in fact, an avatar of all religions, a synthesis of all faiths.”5

The basis of the Swami’s claim is a story that Swami Vivekananda’s guru Paramahansa Ramakrishna (1836-86) once, in 1866, dressed up as a Muslim and then continued his spiritual exercises until he had a vision; and likewise as a Christian in 1874. If at all true, these little experiments shouldn’t be given too much weight, considering Ramakrishna’s general habit of dressing up a little for devotional purposes, e.g. as a woman, to experience Krishna the lover through the eyes of His beloved Radha (not uncommon among Krishna devotees in Vrindavan); or hanging in trees to impersonate Hanuman, Rama’s monkey helper.

But is the story true? Ram Swarup finds that it is absent in the earliest recordings of Ramakrishna’s own talks. It first appears in a biography written 25 years after Ramakrishna’s death by Swami Saradananda (Sri Ramakrishna, the Great Master), who had known the Master only in the last two years of his life. Even then, mention (on just one page in a 1050-page volume) is only made of a vision of a luminous figure. The next biographer, Swami Nikhilananda, ventures to guess that the figure was “perhaps Mohammed”.6 In subsequent versions, this guess became a dead certainty, and that “vision of Mohammed” became the basis of the doctrine that he spent some time as a Muslim, and likewise as a Christian, and that he “proved the truth” of those religions by attaining the highest yogic state on those occasions.7

It is hard not to sympathize with Ram Swarup’s skepticism. In today’s cult scene there are enough wild claims abroad, and it is only right to hold their propagators guilty (of gullibility if not of deception) until proven innocent. In particular, a group claiming “experimental verification” of a religious truth claim as the unique achievement of its founder should not be let off without producing that verification here and now; shady claims about an insufficiently attested event more than a century ago will not do. It is entirely typical of the psychology behind this myth-making that a researcher can testify: “Neither Swami Vivekananda, nor any other monk known to the author, ever carried out his own experiments. They all accepted the truth of all religions on the basis of their master’s work.”8 This is the familiar pattern of the followers of a master who are too mediocre to try for themselves that which they consider as the basis of the master’s greatness, but who do not hesitate to make claims of superiority for their sect on that same (untested, hearsay) basis.

6.3. Was Ramakrishna a Muslim?

For some more polemical comment, let us look into one typical pamphlet by a Hindu upholding the Hindu character of the Ramakrishna Mission: The Lullaby of ‘Sarva-Dharma-Samabhâva’ (“equal respect for all religions”) by Siva Prasad Ray.9 The doctrine of “equal respect for all religions” (in fact, even a more radical version, “equal truth of all religions”, is one of the items claimed by the RK Mission as setting it apart from Hinduism.

This doctrine is propagated by many English-speaking gurus, and one of its practical effects is that Hindu girls in westernized circles (including those in overseas Hindu communities) who fall in love with Muslims, feel justified in disobeying their unpleasantly surprised parents, and often taunt them: “What is the matter if I marry a Muslim and your grandchildren become Muslims? Don’t these Babas to whom you give your devotion and money always say that all religions teach the same thing, that Islam is as good as Hinduism, that Allah and Shiva are one and the same?”10

When such marriages last (many end in early divorce), a Hindu or Western environment often leads to the ineffectiveness of the formal conversion of the Hindu partner to Islam, so that the children are not raised as Muslims. Yet, Islamic law imposes on the Muslim partner the duty to see to this, and in a Muslim environment there is no escape from this islamizing pressure. Thus, after the Meenakshipuram mass conversion to Islam in 1981, non-converted villagers reported: “Of course, there have been marriages between Hindu harijans and the converts. (…) Whether it is the bride or the groom, the Hindu is expected to convert to Islam.”11

Even when the conversion is an ineffective formality, such marriages or elopements which trumpet the message that Hindu identity is unimportant and dispensible, do have an unnerving effect on vulnerable Hindu communities in non-Hindu environments. They also remain an irritant to Hindus in India, as here to Siva Prasad Ray. More generally, the doctrine that all religions are the same leaves Hindus intellectually defenceless before the challenge of communities with more determination to uphold and propagate their religions.

To counter the facile conclusion that Ramakrishna had “practised Christianity and Islam and proven their truth”, Siva Prasad Ray points out that Ramakrishna was neither baptized nor circumcised, that he is not known to have affirmed the Christian or Islamic creed, etc. Likewise, he failed to observe Ramzan or Lent, he never took Christian or Islamic marriage vows with his wife, he never frequented churches or mosques. This objection is entirely valid: thinking about Christ or reading some Islamic book is not enough to be a Christian or a Muslim.

Equally to the point, he argues: “‘Avatar’ or incarnation may be acceptable to Hinduism but such is not the case with Islam or Christianity.”12 In Christianity, one might say that the notion of divine incarnation does exist, but it applies exclusively to Jesus Christ; applying it to Ramakrishna is plain heresy. Sitting down for mental concentration to obtain a “vision” of Christ or Mohammed is definitely not a part of the required practices of Christianity or Islam. Neither religion has a notion of “salvation” as something to be achieved by practising certain states of consciousness. In other words: before you claim to have an agreement with other people, check with them whether they really agree.

The same objection is valid against claims that Swami Vivekananda was “also” a Muslim, as Kundrakudi Adigalar, the 45th head of the Kundrakudi Tiruvannamalai Adhinam in Tamil Nadu, has said: “He had faith and confidence in Hinduism. But he was not a follower of Hinduism alone. He practised all religions. He read all books. His head bowed before all prophets.”13 But “practising all religions” is quite incompatible with being a faithful Christian or Muslim: as the Church Fathers taught, syncretism is typical of Pagan culture (today, it is called “New Age”). Leaving aside polytheistic Hinduism, the mere attempt to practise both Islam and Christianity, if such a thing were possible, would have stamped Ramakrishna as definitely not a Christian nor a Muslim.

Moreover, it is simply untrue that Swami Vivekananda ever “practised” Christianity or Islam: he was not baptized or circumcised, did not attend Church services or Friday prayers, never went to Mecca, never observed Ramzan or Lent. But he did practise vegetarianism (at least in principle)14 and celibacy, which are both frowned upon in Islam. Worst of all, he did worship Hindu Gods, which by definition puts him outside the Islamic fold, Islam being based on the rejection of all Gods except Allah.

Ramakrishna was quite satisfied worshipping Goddess Kali, but: “There is no respectful place for deities in female form in Islam. Rama Krishna engaged in the worship of Kali was nothing but an idolater in the eyes of the Muslims. (…) Islam says that all idolaters will finally end up in Islam’s hell. Now, I want to ask these egg-heads of sarva-dharma-samabhâva if they know where exactly is the place for Rama Krishna in Islam? The fact is that Rama Krishna never truly worshipped in the Islamic fashion, neither did he receive Islamic salvation.”15

Ray challenges the RK Mission monks to try out their assertions on a Muslim or Christian audience: “All this is, thus, nothing but creations of confused and boisterous Hindu monks. No Christian padre or Muslim maulvi accepts Rama Krishna’s salvation in their own religions. They make snide remarks. They laugh at the ignorance of the Hindu monks.”16 Ray makes the snide insinuation explicit: “Only those Hindus who do not understand the implications of other religions engage themselves in the propagation of sarva-dharma-samabhâva; like stupid and mentally retarded creatures, such Hindus revel in the pleasures of auto-erotism in their wicked pursuit of the fad.”17 This rude comparison means that they pretend to be interacting with others, but it is a mere fantasy, all inside their own heads, with the assumed partners not even knowing about it.18

Finally, Ray wonders what happened to the monks, those of the RK Mission and others, who talked about “equal truth of all religions” and chanted “Râm Rahîm ek hai” (“Rama and Rahim/Allah are one”) and “Ishwar Allâh tere nâm” (“both Ishwara and Allah are Your names”) in East Bengal before 1947. As far as he knows, they all fled across the new border when they suddenly found themselves inside Pakistan, but then: “Many a guru from East Bengal [who] has been saved by the skin of his teeth, once in West Bengal, resumed his talk of sarva-dharma-samabâva. (…) But the point still remains that if they really had faith in the message of sarva-dharma-samabhâva, they would not have left East Bengal.”19 As so often in Indo-Pakistani and Hindu-Muslim comparisons, the argument is reminiscent of the inequality between the contenders in the Cold War: you could demonstrate for disarmament in the West, but to demonstrate for this in the East Bloc (except if it were for unilateral disarmament by the Western “war-mongers”) would have put you in trouble.

Siva Prasad Ray also mocks the RK Mission’s grandiose claim of having evaluated not just a few popular religions, but all religions: “Did Rama Krishna ever worship in accordance with Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Saurya or Ganapatya principles? No, he did not. (…) Neither did he worship in accordance with the Jewish faith of Palestine, the Tao religion of China, the religion of Confucius, or the Shinto religion of Japan.”20 Empirically verifying the truth of each and every religion is a valid project in principle, but a very time-consuming one as well.

According to Ray, the slogan of “equal truth of all religions” is “nothing but a watered-down sentiment that means nothing. It is useful only in widening the route to our self-destruction. It does not take a genius to realise that not all paths are good paths in this life of ours; this is true in all branches of human activity.”21 Unlike the RK Mission monks, Ray has really found some common ground with other religions and with rationalism too: they all agree on the logical principle that contradictory truth claims cannot possibly all be right; at most one of them can be right.

To sum up, Ray alleges that the RK Mission stoops to a shameful level of self-deception and ridicule, that it distorts the message of Ramakrishna the Kali-worshipping Hindu, and that it distorts the heritage of Swami Vivekananda the Hindu revivalist. Yet, none of this alleged injustice to Hinduism gives the Mission a place outside Hinduism. After all, there is no definition of “Hindu” which precludes Hindus from being mistaken, self-deluding or suicidal. Regardless of its fanciful innovations, the RK Mission remains a Hindu organization, at least by any of the available objective definitions. Alternatively, if the subjective definition, “Is Hindu, he and only he who calls himself Hindu”, is accepted, then of course the RK Mission, unlike its founders, is no longer Hindu,-but then it is no longer Ramakrishna’s mission either.

The larger issue revealed by the incident with the RK Mission is a psychology of self-repudiation which is fairly widespread in the anglicized segment of Hindu society, stretching from actual repudiation of Hinduism to the distortive reformulation of Hinduism itself after the model of better-reputed religions. In a typical symptom of the colonial psychology, many Hindus see themselves through the eyes of their once-dominant enemies, so that catechism-type books on Hinduism explain Hinduism in Christian terms, e.g. by presenting many a Hindu saint as “a Christ-like figure”.22 Modem translations of Hindu scriptures are often distorted in order to satisfy non-Hindu requirements such as monotheism. This can take quite gross forms in the Veda translations of the Arya Samaj, where entire sentences are inserted in order to twist the meaning in the required theological direction. The eagerness to extol all rival religions and to be unsatisfied with just being Hindu is one more symptom of the contempt in which Hinduism has been held for centuries, and which numerous Hindus have interiorized.

6.4. Yogic value of Ramakrishna’s visions

Ram Swarup reflects a bit a more deeply on the RK Mission lore about Ramakrishna’s visions: “The students of Yoga know that ‘visions’ are of a limited value and they prove very little. (…) They tell us more about the visionary than about the object visioned.”23 In Christianity and Islam, visions have nothing to do with the respective concepts of salvation, and in the Hindu Yoga tradition, they are equally unimportant (unlike in Shamanism, where the “vision quest” is the central experience). If the RK Mission monks had known this common trait of each of the religions concerned, they would not have concluded to the equal truth of these religions on the basis of one individual’s visions.

Even the sentimental theology of “equal truth of all religions” deserves a better basis than an individual’s vision: “The fact is that the truth of harmony and human brotherhood derives not from an absorbed trance but from an awakened prajñâ or wisdom; and its validity depends not on any dramatic ecstatic visions but it belongs to man’s (…) natural reason unspoilt by theologies of exclusiveness.”24 Universalist ideas are very much part of the general Hindu outlook, but are not conceived as depending on ecstatic experiences.

The luminosity of the faces visioned by Ramakrishna is again a normal element in the visions produced as a side-effect of yoga practice: “From the Yogic viewpoint also there was nothing unusual or extraordinary about Ramakrishna’s visions of Jesus and Muhammad. When one meditates on the object (karmasthâna), it undergoes several successive modifications. It gets internalized; it loses its blemishes; it assumes a luminous form (jyotishmatî); it assumes a joyous form (visoka). All this is a normal process of yogic modification and ingestion.”25

The fact that images of Jesus and Mohammed passed through this mental process, “need not give birth to an indiscriminate theology like the one produced by the Mission-that all prophets and religions are equal and that they say the same thing”.26 Ram Swarup points out that yogic writings like Patanjali’s Yoga Sûtra always stress the importance of careful observation and discrimination, quite the opposite of the facile and sweeping conclusions which the RK Mission monks draw from one or two alleged visions.

Ram Swarup offers, for contrast, the example of another luminary of the Bengal Hindu Renaissance, who did not lose his power of discrimination after having had visions: “Visions of a transcendental state have a limited phenomenal (vyavahârika) validity. For example, Sri Aurobindo, as a prisoner of the British, saw in the British jail, in the British judge and in the British prosecuting officer the veritable image of vasudeva, but this did not invalidate the Indian struggle for independence nor the reality of British imperialism. There was no slurring over, no loss of discrimination.”27 Ram Swarup’s point is: whatever Ramakrishna may have visualized concerning Mohammed, vigilance against Islam remains a foremost duty of responsible Hindus, for reasons which can be ascertained without reliance on ecstatic visions.

6.5. The verdict

In spite of all the arguments to the contrary offered by Hindus, the Calcutta High Court ruled in 1987 that the Ramakrishna Mission is a non-Hindu religious minority.28 The public debate occasionally resumed and so did the court proceedings. When the case was taken to the Supreme Court, the Ramakrishna Mission submitted that “any attempt to equate the religion of Ramakrishna with the Hindu religion as professed and practised will be to defeat the very object of Ramakrishnaism and to deny his gospel.”29

In 1995, the Supreme Court had the final say and ruled that “Ramakrishnaism” is a branch of Hinduism.30 As Hinduism Today reported: “On July 2nd, 1995, the Supreme Court of India declared that neither Sri Ramakrishna nor Swami Vivekananda founded any independent, non-Hindu religion. Thus ended the RK Mission’s labyrinthine attempt to gain the privileges accorded only to minority religions in India, specifically the right to manage their extensive educational institutions free from government control.”31

The verdict came with an unexpected rider, disappointing the West Bengal Government and considerably sweetening the defeat for the RK Mission: “Despite the legal loss, the court’s decision surprisingly allows the RK Mission to retain control of its schools in Bengal. This was not by virtue of any constitutional provision, but rather because the law in Bengal regarding the governing of schools specifically exempted the RK Mission schools from government control.”32

All those concerned about Hindu unity heaved a sigh of relief. In a last skirmish, the Mission’s office-bearer Swami Hiranmayananda polemicized with Ram Swarup and denied that Swami Vivekananda had ever expressed pride in Hinduism. Ram Swarup now only had to quote the Supreme Court verdict, which had quoted Vivekananda a number of times to this very effect, e.g.: “Say it with pride: we are Hindus.”33 Another clinching quotation from Ramakrishna himself was that “various creeds you hear about nowadays have come into existence through the will of God and will disappear again through His will (…) Hindu religion alone is Sanâtana dharma” for it “has always existed and will always exist”.34

Ram Swarup remarks that none of the Ramakrishna Mission spokesmen have been able to point out even one instance where Ramakrishna or Vivekananda expressed a desire to give up Hinduism or to start a new religion. For, as so often, Ram Swarup and other Hindus had in fact accepted the burden of proof by taking the trouble of proving the Hinduness of Ramakrishna and Vivekananda, when that burden was logically on those who made the totally new claim about “Ramakrishnaism”. Now the court case had exposed the Mission’s inability to discharge its own burden of proof and to offer even the faintest evidence of Ramakrishna’s desire (let alone decision, let alone implementation of the decision) to found a new religion separate from Hinduism. The evidence offered by the Mission consisted entirely of testimonies by outsiders (Romain Rolland, Arnold Toynbee, even Lenin) to the “universal spirit” of Ramakrishna or Vivekananda, but even these Westerners (still a source of authority) could not be quoted as attesting any repudiation of Hinduism.

But the Supreme Court verdict was only a battle won, and the war continues. Ram Swarup observes: “Though it took shape under particular circumstances, the RK Mission now has an articulated philosophy of being non-Hindu, a veritable manifesto of separation. (…) Now that it is forcefully articulated, the case for separation could exert a continuing influence on the minds of RK Mission authorities. (…) Pseudo-secularism is abroad, and under its auspices Hinduism is a dirty word, and disowning Hinduism is deemed both prestigious and profitable. Those ideological conditions still obtain, and no court can change them. (…) In trying to prove that it was non-Hindu, [the Mission] spoke quite negatively of Hinduism (…) Can the RK Mission outlive this manifesto of separation?”35

In Ram Swarup’s view, the RK Mission’s problem with being Hindu is but a particular symptom of a widespread and deep-seated trauma: “We will do well to remember that Hinduism has passed through a thousand years of foreign domination. During these centuries, its deepest ideas and its cherished institutions were under great attack. The trauma of this period produced deep psychological scars. Hindus have lost self-confidence. They have become passive and apologetic-apologetic about their ideas, their institutions, about themselves and about their very name. They behave as if they are making amends for being Hindus.”36 This, then, is the fundamental problem underlying the intellectual and political ferment which in the present study we are seeking to map out and understand. And such a large-scale problem will take time to find its solution.

6.6. Is the Arya Samaj Hindu?

Many Hindus feared that a different outcome in the RK Mission court case might have had a disastrous precedent value for other organizations with a weak Hindu self-identification. Jagmohan, former Governor of Jammu & Kashmir and a hero of the Hindutva movement, comments: “Had the Supreme Court come to the same conclusion as the Calcutta High Court, many more sects and denominations would have appeared on the scene claiming positions outside Hinduism and thereby causing further fragmentation of the Hindu society.”37

Then again, perhaps the effect of a recognition of the RK Mission as a minority would not have been nearly as dramatic as Jagmohan expected, for in several states, another Hindu reformist organization has enjoyed minority status for decades without triggering the predicted exodus. Jagmohan himself has noted a case where “the temptations in-built in Article 30 impelled the followers of Arya Samaj to request the Delhi High Court to accord the status of a minority religion” but “the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court rightly rejected the contention of the Arya Samaj”.38 However, as early as 1971, the Arya Samaj gained the status of “minority” in Panjab. Then already, it had that status in Bihar, along with the Brahmo Samaj.39

In a way, the Arya Samaj is a minority: the Arya-Samajis are fewer in number than the non-Arya-Samajis.40 By this criterion, every Hindu sect is a minority, and every Hindu school which calls itself “Shaiva school” or “Ram bhakta school” would pass as a minority institution, protected by Art.30. But that is of course not how the courts and the legislators have understood it: in principle, all Hindu minorities within the Hindu majority are deprived of the privileges accorded to the “real” minorities.

In Swami Dayananda’s view, the term Arya was not coterminous with the term Hindu. The classical meaning of the word Arya is “noble”. It is used as an honorific term of address, used in addressing the honoured ones in ancient Indian parlance.41 The term Hindu is reluctantly accepted as a descriptive term for the contemporary Hindu society and all its varied beliefs and practices, while the term Arya is normative and designates Hinduism as it ought to be. Swami Dayananda’s use of the term Arya is peculiar in that he excludes the entire Puranic (as opposed to the Vedic) tradition from its semantic domain, i.e. the major part of contemporary Hinduism. Elsewhere in Hindu society, “Arya” was and is considered a synonym for “Hindu”, except that it may be broader, viz. by unambiguously including Buddhism and Jainism. Thus, the Constitution of the “independent, indivisible and sovereign monarchical Hindu kingdom” (Art.3:1) of Nepal take care to include the Buddhist minority by ordaining the king to uphold “Aryan culture and Hindu religion” (Art.20: 1).42 Either way, the semantic kinship of the two terms implies that the group which chose to call itself Arya Samaj is a movement to reform Hinduism (viz. to bring it up to Arya standards), and, not another or a newly invented religion.

The Arya Samaj’s misgivings about the term Hindu already arose in tempore non suspecto, long before it became a dirty Word under Jawaharlal Nehru and a cause of legal disadvantage under the 1950 Constitution. Swami Dayananda Saraswati rightly objected that the term had been given by foreigners (who, moreover, gave all kinds of derogatory meanings to it) and considered that dependence on an exonym is a bit sub-standard for a highly literate and self-expressive civilization. This argument retains a certain validity: the self-identification of Hindus as “Hindu” can never be more than a second-best option. On the other hand, it is the most practical choice in the short run, and most Hindus don’t seem to pine for an alternative.

6.7. Are travelling gurus Hindus?

A somewhat special case is that of the travelling Hindu gurus in the West. They don’t have to worry about Article 30 or the Communist government in Kolkata, but they do have to fine-tune their communication strategy vis-à-vis the Western public. Usually they claim that their yoga is “universal”43, often also that it “can be combined with other religions”. Thus, in a popular self-presentation video of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s Transcendental Meditation (a.k.a. the Science of Creative intelligence), a Christian pastor is interviewed and he testifies that he has deepened his Christian faith with the help of TM. In the West, weary and wary of religious labels, this seems to be a more successful strategy than an explicit attempt at conversion would be.

The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) generally denies that it is Hindu, in spite of practising purely Hindu rituals and a purely Hindu lifestyle in the service of a purely Hindu god.44 That this policy is guided by petty calculations of self-interest is clear from the cases where ISKCON exceptionally does claim to be Hindu, viz. when collecting money from Hindus.

A former ISKCON member explains: that ISKCON is non-Hindu “is clearly evident in the writings and lectures of Srila Prabhupada, ISKCON’s founder, as well as in the day-to-day preaching statements of its members and current-day leaders. What is especially troubling is that ISKCON periodically does claim to be a Hindu organization. Unfortunately, these claims on the part of ISKCON occur when, and only when, it serves the legal and financial interests of the sect. Thousands of unsuspecting Indian Hindus have been persuaded to contribute funds to the group with the reassurance that they were supporting ‘Hinduism’, ‘Hindu’ temples and the printing of ‘Hindu’ books.”45

But these peculiar elements of separatism in this sect or that can only occur because of the general background of the depreciation of Hindu identity. In Christianity and Islam, only the reverse case exists: sects claiming to be Christian (Mormons) or Muslim (Ahmadiyas, Alevites) but being denied that label by the orthodox. The day Hinduism gets respected again, these sects will probably reaffirm their Hindu identity, and the RK Mission will preface its publications with Vivekananda’s appeal: “Say with pride, We are Hindus!”

Footnotes:

1According to the RK Mission register (quoted by Ram Swarup: Ramakrishna Mission in Search of a New Identity, p-3), there were 1400 Ramakrishnaist monks and 106,072 lay followers in 1980; on an Indian scale, this is definitely a minority.

2Ram Swarup: Ramakrishna Mission in Search of a New Identity (1986) and his exchange of arguments with RK Mission representative Ram Narayan in Indian Express, 19/20-9-1990 and 15/16-11-1990.

3Ram Swarup: “His vision and mission. Vivekananda is being wrongly portrayed as a champion of a synthetic religion”, Observer of Business and Politics, 28-8-1993. No source is given for what seems to be a quotation; at any rate, it sums up, faithfully if not literally, the message of the first part of Vivekananda’s famous address: “Is Vedanta the Future Religion?” (San Francisco 1900), reproduced in Vivekananda’s complete Works, vol.8, see esp. p.124-125.

4BJP: Constitution and Rules, art. IV, p.4.

5Quoted in S.P. Ray: Turning of the Wheel, p.58.

6Details of the step-by-step genesis of this story are given in Ram Swarup: Ramakrishna Mission in Search of a New Identity, p.8-9.

7As the alleged vision of Jesus was slightly more glorious than that of Mohammed, Ram Swarup sarcastically suggests (Ramakrishna Mission, p.9) new horizons to the “equal truth of all religions” school: “This difference could provide much scope for future disputants. One school may hold that while all prophets are equal, some are more equal than others.”

8George M. Williams: “The Ramakrishna Mission: A Study in Religious Change”, in Robert D. Baird: Religion in Modern India, p.62.

9Included as Ch.7 in S.P. Ray: Turning of the Wheel.

10This scenario has been related to me by at least a dozen overseas Hindus in the UK and the USA; the Hindu revivalist publisher Arvind Ghosh (Houston, speaking to me in October 1995) told me that in the Houston area alone, he knew of over 30 cases of Hindu girls marrying Muslims to the dismay of their parents. Others, like RSS prachârak Rama Shastry from Los Angeles (October 1996), assured me that the magnitude of this problem is being exaggerated.

11Report in Illustrated Weekly of India, 6-2-1993, p.11. Likewise: “In Khairontoli [in the tribal belt near Ranchi], there are as many as 15 out of 28 families with 45 children whose fathers are Muslims and mothers Christian tribals. (…) But marriage is held in a unilinear direction, with Muslim boys tying the knot with Christian tribal girls and not vice-versa. Invariably, their offspring bear Islamic names.” This report by Manoj Prasad was mis-titled: “Stupid Cupid sees not caste, creed in Bihar” (Indian Express, 23-1-1994), for what it shows is not at all that love overrules religious discrimination, on the contrary: even in these reported love marriages, Muslim families see to it that the dominant partner is Muslim, and that at any rate, the children are exclusively Muslim.

12S.P. Ray: Wheel, p.58.

13T.S. Subramanian: “A Secular Vivekananda. Interview with Kundrakudi Adigalar”, Frontline, 12-3-1993.

14When travelling in the US, Vivekananda ate whatever he was offered, including pork and beef. This is one more reason why his recognition as a “representative” of Hinduism at the 1893 . of Religion in Chicago was out of order, a pure stroke of personal luck.

15S.P. Ray: Wheel, p.60.

16S.P. Ray: Wheel, p.61.

17S.P. Ray: Wheel, p.63.

18At least one Muslim reply is known. Ram Swarup (Ramakrishna Mission, p.11) quotes an article “Ramakrishna and Islam” from an unnamed Bangladeshi journal, in which a Muslim author argues that Islam does not allow you to “take a holiday and spend a few days as a Muslim”, because “the practice of Islam lasts till death. To embrace Islam and then leave it makes a man an apostate”, an act which “is punished with death”.

19S.P. Ray: Wheel, p.56.

20S.P. Ray: Wheel, p.59. Saurya: devoted to Sûrya, the sun as deity; Ganapatya: devoted to Ganapati/Ganesha, the elephant-headed deity.

21S.P. Ray: Wheel, p.62.

22Sic in Viswanathan Edakkandiyal: Daddy, Am I a Hindu?, p. 157.

23Ram Swarup: Ramkrishna Mission, p.11.

24Ram Swarup: Ramakrishna Mission, p.13.

25Ram Swarup: Ramakrishna Mission, p.12.

26Ram Swarup: Ramakrishna Mission, p.12.

27Ram Swarup: Ramakrishna Mission, p.12, with reference to Aurobindo’s Uttarpara Speech. Vâsudeva, “son of Vasudeva”, is Krishna’s patronym.

28Details in M.D. McLean: “Are Ramakrishnaites Hindus? Some implications of recent litigation on the question”, in South Asia, 1991/2.

29Quoted in Hinduism Today, Sep. 1995, p.1.

30The international monthly Hinduism Today (Honolulu), Sep. 1995, captioned this news as “Ramakrishna Mission Wins!” (viz. wins back its true Hindu identity).

31”India’s Supreme Court to RK Mission: You’re Hindus”, Hinduism Today, Sep. 1995.

32 “India’s Supreme Court to RK.Mission: You’re Hindus”, Hinduism Today, Sep. 1995.

33Organiser published Ram Swarup’s initial comment on the verdict on 13-8-1995 (also in Observer of Business and Politics: “Faith denied or identity regained?”), Hiranmayananda’s reply on 24-9-1995, and Ram Swarup’s final rejoinder on 8-10-1995. Reference is to Vivekananda’s Complete Works, vol.3, p.368-69. Incidentally, no less a secularist than Jawaharlal Nehru testifies (Discovery of India, p.337) that Vivekananda was a “Hindu sannyasin” and that “in America, he was called the ‘cyclonic Hindu’”.

34Culled by the judges from the testimonial collection The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna, then quoted by Ram Swarup in “Ramakrishna Mission: identity recovered”, Organiser, 21-7-1996, written in reply to a statement by RSS man P. Parameswaran, President of the Vivekananda Kendra, who defended the RK Mission’s stand with reference to the impression that its very existence was threatened.

35Ram Swarup: “The RK Mission: judging the judgment”, guest editorial in Hinduism Today, Sep. 1995.

36Ram Swarup: “The RK Mission: judging the judgment”, guest editorial in Hinduism Today, Sep. 1995.

37Jagmohan: “Hinduism and Article 30”, Organiser, 6-8-1995.

38Jagmohan: “Meaning, message and might of Hinduism”, Organiser, 10-9-1995.

39Related by Edward A. Gargar: “Peril to the Indian State: a defiant Hindu fervor”, in Arvind Sharma: Our Religions, p. 54.

40A more principled Arya separatism also exists among Arya Samaj individuals, see D. Vable: The Arya Samaj, which emphasizes its distinctive traits and its quarrels with traditionalists. But Arya Sarvadeshik Pratinidhi Sabha president Vandematharam Ramachandra Rao assured me (interview, 1995) that the official position still defines the Arya Samaj as a reform movement of Hinduism, whatever its legal status for practical (educational) purposes may be.

41Via Pali ayya and Apabhramsha ajje, we see the word evolve to become the modern honorific suffix -jî, as in Gândhjî-jî. It is well-known in Buddhist expressions like the Chatvâri-ârya-satyâni, the “four noble truths”, the Arya-ashtângika-mârga, the “noble eightfold path”, and Arya Dharmna.

42A. Peaslee: Constitutions of Nations, p.772 and 778.

43Far from marking a religion as non-Hindu, tall claims of universalism are typical of modern Hinduism, e.g. this one by Prof. M.M. Sankhdher (“Musings on Hinduism”, Organiser, 7-12-1997): “Hinduism is an all-embracing, comprehensive, universal, human religion which preaches love for all creations-humans, animals, plants and inanimates.”

44”Why do Hindus say, ‘I’m not a Hindu’?”, Hinduism Today, October 1998,

45Frank Morales: “Appalled and disgusted”, letter, Hinduism Today, January 1999.

vijay · April 13, 2005

Being born in a hindu family im not for being called a hindu, which is a foriegn term, and to the nationalists i say, why do they bother changing the names of places in india (even the name india is reffered to as bharat) to their original vedic names and even knocking down mosques to restore original temples and places of worship, then complain so much if vaishnavas dont want to be called hindu because its not athentic and doesnt mean much to them.

A follower of sanatan dharma, a vaishnava or the like is what we want to be known as not a label choosen by foriegners and a few sentimental people who have grown attached to it.

In the short term the word hindu can be used to bring people together through some ideological believes for legal,economic purposes etc, but in the long run we should use our scripture which most regard highly to determine our way of life our names our culture etc. Better to be know as a hare krishna, at least people get to chant krishnas name which is mentioned to be benificial for society at large in the gita, bhagvatam and all other vedic scriptures rather than a meaningless term such as hindu.

Even though krsnadas kaviraj mentions the word hindu, it does not mean that he is encouraging us to use this term prabhupada also uses it favourably in some places as synonymos to Vedic culture, however our prime identity is eternal servent of krsna and that relationship is how we identify ourselves which is athorised by krsnadas kaviraj goswami and prabhupada, either through vaishnava or sanatan dharma etc.

In my opinion our culture is hindu (in as much as it follows the vedic culture) so in that term we can be seen as hindu, but idealogically and philosophically being identified as hindu has no meaning what so ever. Generally Hindu is taken to mean a belief in many gods who are equal, and supreme god id impersonal, to a range of other contridictory philosophys.

Just a few thoughts

krsna · April 13, 2005

by Nimai Nitai dasa (NRS)

Posted on chakra April 13, 2005

Phyletism (ethnic religiosity) finds expression in the progressive Hinduization of ISKCON in America. Because we minister increasingly to Hindu congregations, we attempt to pose as 'authentic' Vaishnavas by taking on the external trappings of Hinduism, and especially its language, ritualism, and appearance. We exchange our Western ethnicity for an Indian ethnicity, without realizing that both are external designations arising from material conditioning.

If that were the extent of the problem, perhaps it would not lessen the effectiveness of our preaching so dangerously. Unfortunately, we are beginning to experience the more internal assimilation of the 'tatha matha tatha patha' ideology of contemporary Hinduism, which dovetails perfectly with Western individualist subjectivism. Thus, Krsna Consciousness is often experienced by many as a spiritual buffet where we can consume whatever we like best, and eschew whatever we dislike -- not unlike directing the servers at the Feast to give us plenty of savories, halava, and sweet rice, and a smaller portion of vegetables.

There are extremely practical -- legal and financial -- reasons for our headlong rush toward phyletism, and one could understand and perhaps even accept a strategic retreat into Hinduism while we resolve many of our current problems as a recently transplanted movement. Unfortunately, our escalating embrace of Hindu culture is not justified as a strategy by its proponents and enactors, but as a principle. They claim that the particular ethno-historical expression of Vedic principles in India is eternal and unchangeable, and therefore universal.

Because Vedic culture was dominant in the entire planet (and most recently in India), there are remnants everywhere. These remnants are Vedic, insofar as they are expressions of Vedic principles in a particular time and place. However, those same remnants, expressed in a different time and place, cease to be expressions of Vedic culture, and become nostalgic manifestations of ethnic chauvinism. What is Vedic is not a set of fixed rules concerning sartorial styles, table manners, musical fashions, and other cultural manifestations, but rather the principles informing all actions. And what is the essential principle? smartavyah satatam visnur vismartavyo na jatucit: Always remember Krsna, and never forget Him. [1]

Rather than assuming that some specific cultural manifestation is Vedic because it was done in the past in a localized manifestation of Vedic culture, we should always discriminate between Vedic principles and their localized expressions. Even if a particular Vedic principle was perfectly expressed at some point in time in a specific location, [2] it does not necessarily follow that the same principle can be expressed identically in another circumstance.

We should always remain grounded in guru, sadhu, and sastra, and not give way to deviation into syncretism. However, this does not mean that we are obligated to use Hindu forms to express Bhagavata Dharma. Srila Bhakti Vinoda Thakura, Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati, and Srila Prabhupada were not "innovators" in the sense of speculating or changing the essence of Bhagavata Dharma. On the contrary, they were loyal followers in the line of the Six Goswamis precisely because they contextualized Krsna Consciousness to their specific desa-kala-patra. The Lord Himself contextualizes in every age, descending in different Divine Forms and establishing a suitable path for "going back home, back to Godhead" in every age (coincidentally, an Indo-Anglican phrase adopted originally by Srila Bhakti Vinoda Thakura).

There must be deep study of Srila Prabhupada's teaching and example, and we certainly must avoid speculation. Dedication without deviation should always be our motto. But Srila Prabhupada himself gave us the key to how we should make proper adjustments. He continually made adjustments throughout his pastime of preaching in the West. He did not give one answer for all times, for all places, for all people. He considered each specific circumstance and made any and all necessary adjustments. That is the essence of his instruction: "Always follow in the footsteps of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and do the needful according to the time and circumstances." [3]

If Western seekers feel that they must become Hindus before they can accept Krsna Consciousness, our movement in North America will always remain infinitesimal, and we will have betrayed Srila Prabhupada's mission to fulfill the prophecy (and commission) of Lord Chaitanya. In the footsteps of our Acharyas, we must be bold in communicating the unchanging message of the Supreme Lord in a form and a language that are understandable and effective.

In terms of language, it should be evident that Srila Prabhupada favored and promoted the use of the vernacular. He preached in the vernacular (to make this point, he preached in English even in India), and a great portion of his time among us was dedicated to translating the scriptures and writing directly in English. He also strongly encouraged that His books be translated into every language. Srila Prabhupada did not originate this trend: Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu did not preach in Sanskrit in Nadia (nor did He change sartorial, culinary, and other external manifestations of Bengali culture as a pre-requisite for chanting the Holy Name). Lord Nityananda preached in Bengali in Bengal. Srila Gadadhara Pandita preached in Oriyan in Orissa. In their respective commentaries on the verse srnvan su-bhadrani rathanga-paner janmani karmani ca yani loke / gitani namani tad-arthakani gayan vilajjo vicared asangah,[4] Srila Jiva Goswami has emphasized that the term 'loke' indicates that the activities of Lord Krsna should be celebrated according to local traditions, and Srila Visvanatha Cakravartipada has emphasized that the glories of the Lord should be chanted in different languages, according to the countries in which devotees reside.

Srila Bhakti Vinoda Thakura wrote in Hindi, Farsi, English, and other languages to reach diverse audiences. Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati wrote and preached extensively in English, and used terminology that is nowhere to be found in the tradition before him -- he actually borrowed many terms from Anglican and Reformed Christianity. Srila Prabhupada said the following, referring to his Guru Maharaja, Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati: "Our superior authority, our spiritual master, he ordered me that 'You just try to preach this gospel, whatever you have learned from me, in English.'" [5] Phyletists probably cringe at Srila Prabhupada's use of the term "gospel" to refer to the message of Krsna Consciousness, but that is precisely how he chose to communicate. He did not shy away from using terms that some might (erroneously) associate exclusively with Western Christianity. Evidently, his use of the term "gospel" does not imply that Srila Prabhupada was preaching Christianity.

Some devotees understand Bhagavata Dharma as a fixed form, and believe that to maintain Hindu culture (which they equate with Vedic culture) is to uphold Bhagavata Dharma. However, if there were no need to change the expression of Bhagavata Dharma according to time, place, and circumstance, we would still be worshiping Lord Matsya, and we would strive to live according to aquatic dharma. Every culture in the material world is always in a state of flux. That is, its core beliefs and values are expressed in varying forms (language, art, architecture, dress, cuisine, behaviors, etc.) according to the context in which it manifests. Change is an essential characteristic of material existence. Even as the Lord descends in a time-specific, place-specific, and circumstance-specific Form, so must the Sampradaya "incarnate" (another Christian term used extensively by Srila Prabhupada, even though theologically it is not an accurate translation of the Sanskrit 'avatara') in a specific time, place, and circumstance.

When discussing the manifestation of Vedic culture in the material world, divergent views arise due to conservative formalism (bharavahatva) or liberal essentialism (saragrahatva) -- to use Srila Bhakti Vinoda Thakura's terminology. Bharavahis exhibit excessive adherence to the letter of the divine law, while saragrahis seek to cling to its essential meaning. Srila Prabhupada said, "We cannot depart from Bhagavad-Gita. But conservative we are not. [É] Everyone is invited to come chant Hare Krsna. This is Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's munificence, His liberality. No, we are not conservative." [6]

Many devotees make a very strong case against the adoption of Western culture and all its ills -- a position that true saragrahis share wholeheartedly, enthusiastically, and without reservations. However, that is a "straw man" argument, since saragrahis do not advocate acceptance of the rationalism, individualism, immorality, materialism, relativism, and banality that some dismissively equate with Western culture. Nor are saragrahis advocating that devotees embrace carnivorism, fornication, gambling, and intoxication, or that we abrogate or relax the scriptural prohibitions against them. Saragrahis do not encourage initiated devotees to chant fewer than the prescribed 16 rounds (on the contrary!), or to chant unauthorized mantras. Furthermore, saragrahis do not propose that we read from the Judeo-Christian Bible in our liturgies, instead of from Bhagavad Gita, Srimad Bhagavatam, and Chaitanya Caritamrta.

Saragrahis do not want to Westernize Krsna Consciousness, but rather to propagate Krsna Consciousness in the West, as Srila Prabhupada ordered us to do. And, in order to do so, we must express the immutable principles of Bhagavata Dharma in our own time, place, and circumstance. A 'paka' Hindu appearance, the ability to quote and etymologize Sanskrit or Bengali slokas, and the gross imitation of Srila Prabhupada's personal idiosyncrasies and mannerisms do not and cannot make us good preachers or pure Vaishnavas. In fact, these external forms that some mistakenly accept as signs of spiritual advancement often prevent the pure message of Krsna Consciousness from penetrating the minds and hearts of sincere Western seekers.

Srila Prabhupada encouraged us to always apply Vedic principles according to time, place, and circumstance. "The teacher (acharya) has to consider time, candidate and country. He must avoid the principle of niyamagraha -- that is, he should not try to perform the impossible. What is possible in one country may not be possible in another. The acharya's duty is to accept the essence of devotional service. There may be a little change here and there as far as yukta-vairagya (proper renunciation) is concerned." [7] Srila Bhakti Siddhanta Sarasvati has given the same instruction: "The supreme Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya, in pursuance of the teaching of the scriptures, enjoins all absence of conventionalism for the teachers of the eternal religion." [8]

Externals are important, but they cannot be imitated or imported from other times, places, and circumstances. We must conform to external behavioral standards, but these must be based on essential Vedic principles (vedais ca sarvair aham eva vedyo [9]). "[...] What is required is a special technique according to country, time and candidate." [10] Our behavior, language, and appearance should communicate that we are sober devotees of the Lord. We should not adopt Western secular behavior and fashion in order to "blend in" (and thus risk losing both our identity and our purpose), but we must act in a manner that communicates our adherence to Krsna Consciousness, rather than to Hinduism. "When we are on the material platform, there are different types of religions --Hinduism, Christianity, Mohammedanism, Buddhism, and so on. These are instituted for a particular time, a particular country or a particular person. Consequently there are differences. [É] When one becomes a Vaisnava, he becomes transcendental to all these limited considerations." [11]

We indeed would weaken our Krsna Consciousness if we were to adopt contradictory principles and the forms that express them. However, the rejection of Hindu phyletism is not synonymous with the adoption of secular Western standards. We must express Vedic principles in a manner that is authentic in our present time, place, and circumstance. This is what Srila Bhakti Vinoda Thakura has to say about putting too much stock in attempting to enforce one universal cultural standard:

"People in various countries on various continents have a wide variety of natures. Although their principal nature is only one, their secondary characteristics are many -- you will not find any two people in the world who have identical secondary qualities. Since even twins born of the same womb have some difference in form and quality, can one expect that people born in different countries can ever have exactly the same qualities? Different countries have different water, air, mountains, forests, and different eatables and clothing. Because of this, the people of these places have naturally developed different physiques, complexions, customs, clothing, and food." [12]

Many devotees correctly perceive the nominalism that engulfs ISKCON in America, and their reaction is to attempt to impose a 'no change' paradigm on the external manifestations of Krsna Consciousness. They assume that what Srila Prabhupada accomplished is best maintained by repeating an inalterable tactic (regardless of changing circumstances), instead of grasping the strategic principle that informed his brilliant missionary efforts. They forget that the entire history of the Sampradaya is precisely one of continuous change and adaptation; it is descent (avatara) into the desa-kala-patra. 'No change' is perhaps the most ominous of change ideologies; it is deviation of a fundamental order, a betrayal of Lord Chaitanya's mission for the redemption of all living entities, meeting them wherever they may be, in all towns and villages.

Srila Prabhupada was always careful in making any adjustments, and we should be equally -- if not more -- careful. We should not make hasty modifications, nor should we make them independently of the consensus of saintly Vaishnavas. For this purpose, among many others, we should return to the conciliar mode of settling differences that was prevalent in the Sampradaya in earlier times. The annual Sri Mayapura meetings of the worldwide Society are an ideal setting in which these matters should be discussed. If a consensus cannot be reached among the senior ISKCON members, we should not hesitate to consult the leading sadhus of other branches of our Sampradaya. It is vitally important for us to consider that every branch of the Sampradaya must remain always organically connected to every other, and to the trunk from which all branches arise, Lord Chaitanya and His intimate Associates.

The Chaitanya Sampradaya is a living, undivided body, a communion of faith and practice. It is not a juridical structure, nor a corporation with unchanging "standard operating procedures". We must continue to manifest Bhagavata Dharma in the West; that is what Srila Prabhupada commissioned us to do. But we must not -- and cannot -- imitate our Founder-Acharya and the previous Acharyas. Rather, we must propagate Bhagavata Dharma by following in their footsteps. Ultimately, the Chaitanya Sampradaya is the yutha of Srimati Radharani, and Her servants must always "do the needful according to the time and circumstances."

--

Footnotes:

[1] Padma Purana,quoted in Cc Madhya 22.113

[2] 5000 years ago, 500 years ago, or even 50 years ago, in India or New York's Lower East Side

[3] Cc. Adi 17.144 p.

[4] SB 11.2.39

[5] London, on August 3, 1973

[6] Srila Prabhupada Lilamrita, Chapter One

[7] Cc Madhya 23.105, p

[8] The Harmonist, Vol. XXIX No 7, 1932

[9] Bg 15.15

[10] Cc. Madhya 23.105 p

[11] CC Madhya 25.121 p

[12] ibid

April 13, 2005

Jai Ganesh

Ever shifting goal post

A new game has begun where did this word Hindu come from?

First the objection was this is a bodily designation then, then it was hodhe podge i.e. various concept within a Dharma therefore can not be a Dharma but when pointed out this is not really an alien concept since Krishna in Bhagvat Gita also speaks of it.

So the attention shift to the actual word Hindu it is given by some one from out side who lived on the other side of the river, although there is no hard evidence to prove that. It could very well be connected with Indu mention frequently in Vedas, indu is same as soma and soma Shetra is mentioned in shastra draw your own conclusion.

The objection is that it has no mention in the shastra.

So does many new groups but the connection is made by inference.

What does shastra say? It says follow Dharma. The Gita begins with Dharma shestre.

What does Hindu say it is a way of life i.e. Dharma.

Hindu Dharma by inference means one who follows Dharma as laid down in Vedic shastra.

It does not matter if the word Hindu gets dropped, nothing will change; we still would be bickering whose path is better.

I like the description Hindu Dharma, it does not impose on anyone it say choose a path and follow, be responsible for your own action (Karma), just as Lord Krishna says to Arjun at the end of the Gita now do as you see fit.

Jai Shree Krishna

Sign In

The Hindufication of ISKCON

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post