Krishnananda dasa

Dear Brahma Prabhu, Tripurari Maharaja made the above-quoted statement in 2000. Does he really mean to assert that Srila Prabhupada wrote his Gita commentary before 1950? Dozens if not hundreds of eyewitnesses could contradict this assertion. Please explain.

Well, here's the URL of two Hampton-Sydney College Web pages of the scholar (Gerald Carney) who is researching Baba Bharati: http://wcb.hsc.edu/wcb/schools/HSC/reli/geraldc/geraldc.html http://people.hsc.edu/faculty-staff/geraldc/ I'm fairly sure that the deleted post referred back to something Mr. Carney was working on... sorry I can't be more help.

The devotee's name was Baba Premanand Bharati. From the Encyclopedia of American Religions, 3rd Edition, 1989, Gale Research (ISBN 0-8103-2841-0): Surendranath Mukerji (died 1914) better known by his religious name -Baba Premanand Bharati- was among the first Hindu teachers to come to America, arriving around 1902 from Bengal. He was a student of Swami Brahmanand Bharati and a follower of the Krishna Consciousness Movement (ultimately more well known thanks to 'Hare Krishna' movement of the '70's) and founded the "Krishna Samaj" (now defunct). Bharati, the nephew of a prominent Bengali judge, formed the Krishna Samaj in N.Y.C. and lectured to popular audiences in other eastern cities. He eventually moved to L.A. where a temple was constructed and he had his greatest following. In 1909 he returned to India where, with a few of his American disciples, he opened a mission in Calcutta. The mission failed for lack of financial support and he & his followers returned to America. He died in Calcutta in 1914. The temple dissolved in America soon after Bharati's death. In the years immediately after his death, Bharati was attacked by people opposed to the growth of Hinduism in America, such as Elizabeth A. Reed, whose study of Bharati and the other early gurus was a significant factor in building public support for the Asian Exclusion Act passed in 1917. The strength and devotion of Bharati's disciples, however, kept his memory alive over the years. In the 30's, members of the Order of Loving Service (a California mystical group) dedicated the book "Square" as follows: " To Baba Premanand Bharati, who by his love, patience, and continued watchfulness has led me out of darkness into Light, out of out of weariness into Rest, out of confusion into Understanding, out of continuous striving into Perfect Peace." In the 70's, members of AUM Temple of Universal Truth (founded in the 20's) were reprinting Bharati's writings in their periodical and selling pictures of "Our Beloved Baba Bharati". sources: Baba Premanand Bharati, Krishan. New York: Krishna Samaj, 1904 Baba Premanand Bharati, American Lectures. Calcutta: Indo-American Press, no date [1910?] J. N. Farquhar, Modern Religious Movements in India. New York:Macmillan, 1915 Elizabeth A. Reed, Hinduism in Europe and America. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons 1914 Lalita {Maude Lalita Johnson}, Square. Laguna Beach, CA: Order of Loving Service, 1934

I'd like to begin a discussion of innovation, and its appropriate limits, in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. In the last 30 years, I have come to appreciate that many deviations and misunderstandings come from not being aware of our sampradaya's history... or not coming to terms with its implications. Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur innovated HUGELY in his writings. He opened up Vaishnava thought to the methods and rubrics of Western scholarly analysis. See Shukavak Dasa's "Hindu Encounter With Modernity" for further documentation on this point. The Thakur had two sons. One, Lalita Prasad, said "No further innovation." The other, Bimala Prasad, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, made several major adjustments: 1) He introduced new mantras (e.g. the brahma-gayatri, previously not used by Gaudiyas) 2) He introduced tridandi-sannyasa, previously not used by the Gaudiyas 3) He and his followers wore the brahmana thread, which his father and previous Gaudiyas did not. I could go on: his early experiments (as you can confirm via Paramadvaiti Swami are documented in the earliest sources) included having his sannyasis wear green, then black, before settling on saffron. And some of the "scriptures" he used, such as the one containing the 108 sannyasa names, were "forged" (his supporters would say "inspired") and did not previously exist before he and his Sanskritist composed them. In any case, he left a legacy after making his own changes. Most of his followers then said "No further changes." But one, Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, made further changes. He gave brahma-gayatri to women, which his guru had never done. He initiated people he knew to be homosexuals (remember, he roomed with Kirtanananda in the earliest days, and was plainly aware of his disciple's tendencies). He allowed women to lead classes and kirtans, and even to have a recording of a woman's voice heard in every ISKCON temple every morning when the deities were greeted. He introduced daily guru-puja, unprecedented before his implementation. He used novel Tulasi prayers, and made many changes regarding sadacara. Some would even say that he changed the philosophy regarding the origin of the jiva, though this is a controversial point. In any case, he made many changes, and after he left most of his disciples said "No further innovations." But a few have tried to innovate: Siddhasvarupa abandoned sannyasa and public use of the maha-mantra Kirtanananda tried to "Christianize" the philosophy Hansadutta and others tried to "ritvikize" the philosophy Though they have been villified for doing so, the above three devotees actually innovated LESS than their three predecessor-acharyas. I wonder whether we can get an intelligent and non-offensive thread going about the role of innovation in the disciplic line descending from Bhaktivinode? What are the limits of innovation, and how can we distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable innovation without resorting to ad hominem or circular arguments?

When Rocana and Jahnavi set up their new verification scheme for their Dharma-Mela forum, I didn't bother to sign up. Now that a couple of weeks have passed, I'm wondering whether it might be worthwhile to do so. Does anybody here still participate on the Dharma-Mela forum? Is it still active? Is that activity worthwhile? Please share whatever news you might have. Thanks!

Aha! Now I understand the problem. ISKCON taught for years that, in the words of one guru and GBC, "it is better to eat hamburgers than to listen to Sridhara Maharaja." So as the Dallas devotee children discover that it is good to listen to Sridhara Maharaja, they will naturally conclude, per their ISKCON training, that as good as it is to listen to Sridhara Maharaja, eating a hamburger must be even better. Thus the danger of a convenient McDonalds.

My car became a Muslim. I should have expected that; after all, it IS a convertible!

No.

OK? You want names? <<< Nope, not interested. - jndas I could extend the list further, but will leave it at these five for starters. "Loose Angeles" acquired that nickname for a reason, though there were certainly a few admirable pockets of strict sadacara. [This message has been edited by jndas (edited 07-08-2001).]

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that they SHOULDN'T oppose McDonalds. They SHOULD. But what I am saying is that the precedent is unfortunately against them, as too many devotees have for too long made their peace with "fast food" establishments. Surely you've seen the discussions on other Vaishnava forms about eating fast-food french fries?

Sorry, Gauracandra, I guess you haven't visited New Dvaraka. There's a REASON it acquired the nickname "Loose Angeles" many years ago. Frankly, I suspect the Dallas devotees are more concerned about a financial competitor--another restaurant competing for traffic--than about the spiritual effect a McDonalds will have. The grhastha community in Dallas hasn't given up their televisions because of exposure to McDonalds advertising, have they? Methinks I smell vaishya hypocrisy, not brahminical purity here.

That's odd... the Los Angeles temple has made its peace with a Kentucky Fried Chicken to the north and a hamburger joint--VERY CLOSE--to the west. In fact, from time to time temple devotees are seen eating there, and carefully explain that they are only eating the vegetarian preps!

They haven't had to FORCE themselves into Ratha Yatra. Bhavananda, Kirtanananda, Rohini Kumar, and many other including sannyasis and gurus, have found their place in ISKCON. For that matter, one could say the same about meat-eaters. Ramesvara was already eating meat by the time of his final Ratha Yatra in ISKCON. And there have been others. Have you ever lived in an ISKCON bramachari ashram? If you had to kick out all the homosexuals, you'd lose a HUGE proportion of the inmates. I'd venture to guess that the proportion of homosexuals among ISKCON brahmacharis and sannyasis is greater than that among Catholic priests. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.

...If you believe the rejection of our guru varga is acceptable behavior Not necessarily acceptable, but perfectly consistent with what he has been taught by his guru and senior godbrothers. ... Srila Prabhupada has written than no one should follow anything blindly, but inquiries should be made with respect for the speaker. And whether he is right or wrong in his decision, that is apparently what Satyaraja Prabhu has done. ... minimizes the importance of the guru disciple relationship,and the necessity for anugatya in apporaching the lila of Radha and Krsna conjugal. I haven't seen Satyaraja Prabhu minimize the importance of the guru-disciple relationship. He has simply suffered a loss of faith in a guru... just as hundreds of ISKCON devotees have done when confronting their own gurus' inadequacies. If he's automatically wrong to do what he did, then so are the hundreds who have given up their gurus and gone to Srila Narayana Maharaja.

Puru Prabhu is funny. He thinks we will forget Satyaraja Prabhu's real stated objection to his former guru. He had heard his guru say "Don't slander Vaishnavas." Yet he observed his guru slandering Vaishnavas. When ISKCON gurus do that, Srila Narayana Maharaja urges their disciples to abandon them. So this is no more than a case of "the chickens coming home to roost." Satyaraja Prabhu, whatever his many obvious faults, has not once said that he does not require Vaishnava association, as Puru Prabhup as falsely accused in his typical Gaudiya Matha ad hominem attack. Satayaraja Prabhu has simply accepted other Vaishnava authorities whom he believes are free from the hypocrisy and scriptural dishonesty he believes he has detected in his former sangha. For Puru Prabhu to distort Satyaraja's words as he has done does not serve his gurudeva's cause.