How many Gaudiya Vaishnava's accept the teachings of Srila Prabhupada. When i look at his teachings, they seem to be good, but he is very harsh and sometimes says things that i dont know all Vaishnava's would agree with. He was a against homosexuality and wanted people to change to Heterosex. He even had gay men marry women to see if they would change. He also seems to use derogetory terms for Advaitins such as Mayavadi. So again, Gaudiya Vaishnava's, How to do you view Prabhupada and his teachings.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Question for Gaudiya Vaishnava's
- Thread starter Self
- Start date
Andal
resident hypnotist
Namaskar Self,
For me it's a complicated issue as I go to an ISKCON temple. I can't help but feel great respect and admiration for Srila. After all, if it were not for him, I and thousands of other people may have never found Krishna.
With that said, do I agree with every single one of his teachings? No. I am progressive woman and some of his teachings about sexuality I find problematic. I don't believe it's necessary to take absolutely everything he said as truth, particularly the things that are so obviously colored by culture. I agree with his teachings about God but I do not agree with some of his teachings on culture.
As for the Advaitin thing. You will find similar attitudes in other Vaishnav circles, not just Gaudiya. I have found Dvaitins in particular to be really harsh against everyone who's not them, even other Vaishnavs. While I disagree completely with Advaita philosophy, I don't think it's right either to trash talk them or call them derogatory names. (btw: what does Mayavadi mean?) We all have our own path and karma to contend with.
Aum Hari Aum!
Like Krishnakanta, I have a lot of respect for his devotion and the fact that he brought Krishna consciousness to the world.
However I find it very difficult to digest many of his teachings or dogmas and do not consider him to be as perfect as the hare kishna devotees proclaim.
However I find it very difficult to digest many of his teachings or dogmas and do not consider him to be as perfect as the hare kishna devotees proclaim.
dharma_seeker
Member
Well, he probably had less knowledge about theory of evolution at that time. Plus Darwinism think there is no GOD, so probably, Srila rejected any kind of evolution without the existence of supreme consiouness.
Regarding evolution, if one reads the Nasadiya Sukta of Rig Veda, it is quite clear that modern cosmology theories are in accordance of vedas. The time line corresponds very nicely. So Big Bang, Expansion, Contraction, and then Big Crunch is part of Hindu Philosophies and it is an eternal cycle till 100 years of Brahma.
Regarding evolution, well natural selection is a very logical process and is happening in the nature. we can see the mutations and SNPs etc. and nature is playing its role.
If you read Samkhya philosophy about matter (Prakriti) and spirit (Purusha), it talks about evolution from a hindu point of view.
dharma_seeker
Member
Dharma teaches us that:
yaani asmakam suchritani, tani tavya upasthani, no itranani..(Taittiriya Upanishad, I-II-2)
This means good actions of others should be embraced and imitated and not the rest. Acting upon this precept we can keep up the good and give up the bad. Our welfare lies in carrying on our good conduct, actions, and intentions.
Srila Prabhupada is an essential link in Gaudiya Viasnavism, and did bounds for "Hinduism" as a whole. His teachings are perfect, but our interpretations of those teachings are in-perfect. For example, did Swami Mahraja care if someone was Homosexual or not, or if someone was a woman or a man? Absolutly not. He was trying to preach that we are not this body, and that we should have only one goal...to follow our Nitya Dharma, which is servant of God. Now you may or may not disagree with his methods, but his goal for every living entity was equality in the service of the Lord. He also opened up the flood gates to the Western countries even looking at "Eastern" thought process as a legitimate option. He also showed to Indian followers that, if you preach that we are not the body, why do you continue to treat western devotees differently. All the attention from the West also helped those in India re-examine the importance and legitimacy of their own religion. So all glories to a saint that is a intregal link in the chain of Gaudiya Viasnavism.
I think that this is not a valid statement. Majority of Hindus in India have never doubted the legitimacy of their religion and have historically never cared about the "attention by the West" to "validate" or "legitimize" their religion. Yes, your statement holds true for a very small percentage of Hindus who got "westernized" in their thought processes to begin with.
Regards,
Kuvalya_Dharmasindhu
Nondualistic Bhakta
Mayavadi is the derogatory term used to label those followers of Shankaracharya's Advaita Vedanta. This is because it is Advaitin's perspective that the world is Maya. Vada is a term that can be translated as "Way of" and so Vadi is "Follower of". However, i started reading the "Bhagavad Gita As It Is" a few years back and i found that Srila Swami-ji doesn't have as firm an understanding of Advaitin philosophy as he leads his followers to believe. He takes many of our understandings of the universe and Brahman/Atman out of context.
Despite the fact that i'm an Advaitin, i've always been hopelessly in love with Shri Vishnu. So, i must say that i do appreciate what he did for the Bhakti movement; like it was pointed out above, without him i probably wouldn't have met the love of my life.
Om Shanti
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
Srila Prabhupada did not introduce Hinduism to the West. Swami Vivekananda, Paramahansa Yogananda and Gandhi all made Hinduism Interesting to the west well before he ever came to the America. Many the western Intelligencia were very interested in Vedanta by the mid 20th century. Over 10% of the great novels in English of the 20th century were written by white guys who were ether converts to Hinduism or at least very interested. Folks like Gertrude Stein, Aldous Huxley, Christopher Isherwood, John Coletrain and many others had a great love for Hinduism. Well before Srila Prabhupada stepped foot on our shores.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
I agree and probably most Hindu's know little or nothing about him or many of the well known teachers of Hinduism in the west.
This is something I have wondered, are Hindu's in India fairly detached from western concepts of God i.e. Abrahmic: Allah or Jehovah?
In general (and all generalisations are likely to be wrong somewhere) I assume that they are aware of Islam etc, but it has almost no impact or relevance as it does in the western world. I would love to go to India, rather than to have to ask
I feel the abrahmic concepts and theology is very ingrained in the west and as an aspirant of dharma, it can play a role.
Namasté Kuvalya
It is interesting to know you are on the Advaita Vedanta path, it is an interesting school. I have encountered a few anti-advaita perspectives and the term mayavada. It appears that Shankara’s predecessors needed to first dismiss his philosophy in order to promote their own. I find ISKONs arguments to be the less convincing. Although I have the impression ISKON have brought good people happiness and value in their spiritual life. My interest lies in philosophy and Vedanta and not on discouraging those happy with their faith or religion.
An example of the argument against Shankara is clear from Bhagavad Gita As It IS. The part I quote is clear that it serves to change the readers opinion of others in order and justify their own argument later, here is an example of an a negation of Monism to justify their point of view.- Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 6: Sankhya-yoga, Text 20-23.
Quote:
Yoga practice is more or less based on the principles of the Patanjali system. Some unauthorized commentators try to identify the individual soul with the Supersoul, and the monists think this to be liberation, but they do not understand the real purpose of the Patanjali system of yoga.
There is an acceptance of transcendental pleasure in the Patanjali system, but the monists do not accept this transcendental pleasure, out of fear of jeopardizing the theory of oneness. The duality of knowledge and knower is not accepted by the nondualist, but in this verse transcendental pleasure--realized through transcendental senses--is accepted. And this is corroborated by the Patanjali Muni, the famous exponent of the yoga system. The great sage declares in his Yoga-sutras: purusartha-sunyanam gunanam pratiprasavah kaivalyam svarupa-pratistha va citi-saktir iti.""
I am doubtful that a strong philosophical argument can base a convincing theology on the sentence: "Yoga practice is more or less based on Patanjali". It is like saying that despite Lord Krishna teaching Arjuna all the wisdom that the Bhagavad Gita holds, Lord Krishna was actually basing his Yoga practice "more or less" on Patanjali. It then becomes a debate on which degree Lord Krishna is basing His teaching on Patanjali. This distracts I feel from the truth itself that the Lord teaches. Also what is "more or less", surely if you don't know exactly how can you based your philosophy on a "more or less"? Unless the reader is happy to overlook that of course.
Well, once the reader accepts one or more negations of a predecessors philosophy, the question which arises is “what then is the right way for me to go?”. This is followed by “our way of course is right!” and so the aspriant becomes a devotee. I feel this isn't a way forward, at least not for me, I like good investigation and intellegient philosophy.
My point is to bring awareness into how philosophical argument can lead a spiritual aspirant into accepting this school of thought, almost on faith and rejection of other Archaryas. I personally feel each individuals commitement to a religion or spiritual path requires the individual to engage in more founded, traditional Self-investigation, discrimination and philosophy. I would not place my self in a situation which is founded on “more or less” statements or generalisations that monists have "not understand the real purpose of the Patanjali system of yoga." How can such generalisations be accepted so easily by so many?
Last edited:
kaisersose
Active Member
Prabhupada's Hare Krishna followers were schooled to never doubt his words. The kind of analysis you perform on his Translation would be met with shock and severe disapproval.
Anyway, it has all changed in the last few years. After several cases of abuse by Iskcon Gurus came to light, the organization lost its sheen in the US. These Gurus were hand picked by Prabhupada to lead Iskcon into the 21st century, but they fizzled out, proving that there was no "divine magic" in play, after all.
Today, if one visits an Iskcon temple in the US, one mostly sees Hindus of Indian origin. To them, it is yet another Hindu temple with great prasadam.
Anyway, it has all changed in the last few years. After several cases of abuse by Iskcon Gurus came to light, the organization lost its sheen in the US. These Gurus were hand picked by Prabhupada to lead Iskcon into the 21st century, but they fizzled out, proving that there was no "divine magic" in play, after all.
Today, if one visits an Iskcon temple in the US, one mostly sees Hindus of Indian origin. To them, it is yet another Hindu temple with great prasadam.
Hi Kaisersose
Thanks for the feedback. I have had this impression from our friend Krishnakanta here on RF also. I like to think it is moving in that direction
Here in Europe I still sense a zealous Krishna movement and have not entered any ISKON temples for that reason. They provide free food (similar to the Sikh Gurdwara) here.kaisersose
Active Member
Hi Kaisersose
Thanks for the feedback. I have had this impression from our friend Krishnakanta here on RF also. I like to think it is moving in that direction
Their propoganda can work only a specific type of person. Someone who is trusting, is disinclined to seek corroboration and is generally not familiar with the bigger picture of Hindu traditions.
I was on one of their discussion boards for several years and during all that time, I did not see a single person getting infuenced by their evangelism. On the contrary, some of them were dismayed by the arrogance and doublespeak that they eventually moved away from that tradition.
Wannabe Yogi
Well-Known Member
From my point of view there is a side of every philosophy that can lead us away from the truth:
- Tantra it is the sex drugs and rock and roll.
-Advaita detachment from the suffering of our fellow man.
-Vaishnavs have the tendency towards religious bigotry.
It is only through devotion and discrimination that we can avoid the pit falls of are chosen path. Its not only Advaitans that tend to be monistic. It is also Devotees of the Shakti and Shiva.
Kuvalya_Dharmasindhu
Nondualistic Bhakta
Namasté Kuvalya
It is interesting to know you are on the Advaita Vedanta path, it is an interesting school. I have encountered a few anti-advaita perspectives and the term mayavada. It appears that Shankaras predecessors needed to first dismiss his philosophy in order to promote their own. I find ISKONs arguments to be the less convincing. Although I have the impression ISKON have brought good people happiness and value in their spiritual life. My interest lies in philosophy and Vedanta and not on discouraging those happy with their faith or religion.
An example of the argument against Shankara is clear from Bhagavad Gita As It IS. The part I quote is clear that it serves to change the readers opinion of others in order and justify their own argument later, here is an example of an a negation of Monism to justify their point of view.
Quote:
Yoga practice is more or less based on the principles of the Patanjali system. Some unauthorized commentators try to identify the individual soul with the Supersoul, and the monists think this to be liberation, but they do not understand the real purpose of the Patanjali system of yoga.
There is an acceptance of transcendental pleasure in the Patanjali system, but the monists do not accept this transcendental pleasure, out of fear of jeopardizing the theory of oneness. The duality of knowledge and knower is not accepted by the nondualist, but in this verse transcendental pleasure--realized through transcendental senses--is accepted. And this is corroborated by the Patanjali Muni, the famous exponent of the yoga system. The great sage declares in his Yoga-sutras: purusartha-sunyanam gunanam pratiprasavah kaivalyam svarupa-pratistha va citi-saktir iti.""
I am doubtful that a strong philosophical argument can base a convincing theology on the sentence: "Yoga practice is more or less based on Patanjali". It is like saying that despite Lord Krishna teaching Arjuna all the wisdom that the Bhagavad Gita holds, Lord Krishna was actually basing his Yoga practice "more or less" on Patanjali. It then becomes a debate on which degree Lord Krishna is basing His teaching on Patanjali. This distracts I feel from the truth itself that the Lord teaches. Also what is "more or less", surely if you don't know exactly how can you based your philosophy on a "more or less"? Unless the reader is happy to overlook that of course.
Well, once the reader accepts one or more negations of a predecessors philosophy, the question which arises is what then is the right way for me to go?. This is followed by our way of course is right! and so the aspriant becomes a devotee. I feel this isn't a way forward, at least not for me, I like good investigation and intellegient philosophy.
My point is to bring awareness into how philosophical argument can lead a spiritual aspirant into accepting this school of thought, almost on faith and rejection of other Archaryas. I personally feel each individuals commitement to a religion or spiritual path requires the individual to engage in more founded, traditional Self-investigation, discrimination and philosophy. I would not place my self in a situation which is founded on more or less statements or generalisations that monists have "not understand the real purpose of the Patanjali system of yoga." How can such generalisations be accepted so easily by so many?
Namaste Onkarah-ji,
Advaita helped pull me out of a huge scare when i studied Buddhist Shunyata too early on. It also helped me to come to understand Shunyata and the Buddha's message better. And to care for my brothers and sisters everywhere with much more compassion than any other religion has inspired within me. It has always felt like the right path for me. Just as i've always felt a karmic pull toward Sri Vishnu.
I totally agree with your entire analysis of Srila Swami-ji's words. Keep in mind, i've never been a part of the Hare Krishna movement. Nor have i ever been a part of any dualistic religious movement (with the exception of Christianity). That being said when i finally did find Hinduism again (i say again because i'm convinced that i was connected to both Advaita and Vishnu long before this life), it was incredible and to this day i love to study the different philosophies and philosophers (even of the Dvaita schools).
However, i'd like to address the topic you proposed earlier. No where in the translation does it make reference to a separation of the self and the "Superself." It is only in his Purport that Srila Swami-ji decides to make mention of the "Superself." Like many of his other Purports in the Bhagavad Gita As It Is, he likes to break from commenting purely on the verses and address philosophical doctrines that have nothing to do with the actual translated verse of the Gita that he should be commenting upon. What i do is, read the translation and the look at the "Synonyms" or each of the translated terms and for the verse that you have given me "Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 6: Sankhya-yoga, Text 20-23", i must say i agree with some of it (the part that makes reference to the translated verse); for example the first two and half sentences, because they address the topic brought up in the translated verse. However, the rest of the third sentence where it states, "without any of the misgivings of identifying the self with the Superself" (i.e. the eternal distinction between the Atman and Brahman/Krishna), is not mentioned, outlined or even implied by the translated verse. With this I humbly try to illustrate that Srila Swami-ji is using an opportunity to try and twist the translation into disagreeing outright with what he dubs the "Mayavada."
Also he claims that "...monists do not accept this transendental pleasure, out of fear of jeopardizing the theory of oneness." I find this interesting, because even if i wasn't devoted to Shri Vishnu, i don't see a reason to declare this transendental pleasure "unacceptable." I just disagree with the idea that it is a pleasure that differs from oneness. Remember, words themselves are dual and even using them means straying into the territory of duality. However, words, as we all know too well, are essential for practical purposes. This is why i don't go around dropping labels and avoiding language as a whole.
I understand that the purpose of a purport is to expound upon a subject. However, he has a habit of going off on a lecture about his own doctrine. And most of the time a lot of the subjects that he talks about (as i stated before) aren't even a part of the original verse. Another great example using this same verse and purport is when Srila Swami-ji talks at length about service to the lord. Which isn't even discussed in this verse. This is why i find many of his arguments against Advaita quite annoying. Because his ideas don't have much actual scriptual support. Much of it is manipulated. Instead of looking at the verse and extracting the simple yet beautiful meaning he writes 2 1/2 -- 3 pages on another topic.
Thanks for taking the time to read this reply. Sorry it's so long.
*Om Shanti*
Prayag Das
Member
Mayavadi philosophy believes that each of us is God and we do not realize this because we are covered by maya (illusion).
The Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not accept this because it would mean that maya is stronger than God, which is an impossibility. God, by nature has to be the strongest, most beautiful, etc.
Krishna Himself say in the Bhagavad Gita 2.12 "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." This clearly explains that we are separate from Krishna and will remain so forever.
The Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not accept this because it would mean that maya is stronger than God, which is an impossibility. God, by nature has to be the strongest, most beautiful, etc.
Krishna Himself say in the Bhagavad Gita 2.12 "Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be." This clearly explains that we are separate from Krishna and will remain so forever.