My problems with the philosophy of Srila Prabhupada

[Baobabtree]

Haribol all!

 

As I had mentioned in another thread I don't think the philosophy or works of Srila Prabhupada are without flaw. I'd like to outline my problems with his philosophical ideas here, and give a chance for any of his followers to address these problems I have.

 

First and foremost is the demi-god concept (a concept I see in not just ISKCON, but Vaishnavism all together). Amongst the so-called demigods are Indra, and Yamaraj. However in RigVeda 1:164:46 we find

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.

This would contradict the idea held by ISKCON that these deities are seperate from Vishnu and inferior compared to him, seeming to indicate that rather they are other facets or forms of Vishnu.

 

There's more to come, but unfortunatley I have to run at the moment.

 

Hairbol all!

[Baobabtree]

Though, I've had several other objections which I've sadly forgotten another of my problems stems from Prabhupada's translation of the Srimad Bhagavatam. Where he claims that Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.6.16: says that Lord Krishna is the the origin of all other incarnations. However as another member here said

This verse is praising Vishnu as the supreme source of power where puman means Purusha or the male aspect of creation. You are translating puman to 'the original puruSa-avatAra, MahA-ViSNu'and completely twisting the verse to mean something else.

Now for the most part this wouldn't be a big deal, but Prabhupada commonly stresses how one needs to follow a guru with proper understanding of Vaishnava theology, and who is reliable in his translations, the latter of which he appears to not always be as I've just demonstrated.

 

Edit: My last objection has to do with the parampara lineage of Prabhupada. Having done some research it appears there is some considerable gaps between some of the gurus they list (eg: Narottam Das Thakura and Visvanath Chakravarti actually had three other acharyas between them) yet they emphasise an unbroken dicsiplic succesion.

 

Don't get me wrong I respect Prabhupada and his movement for spreading Vaishnavism and bhakti all through out the world, but there are some major problems I have with what he taught. Furthermore I'm especially attracted to Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and I have no problem excepting that though Bhagavatam claims Krishna descended from Vishnu, this was only to enter the material world, and furthermore Vishnu himself was actually an expansion of Lord Krishna's cosmic form (hope I'm making sense here)

[Beggar]

 

. Now for the most part this wouldn't be a big deal, but Prabhupada commonly stresses how one needs to follow a guru with proper understanding of Vaishnava theology, and who is reliable in his translations, the latter of which he is not as I've just demonstrated.

 

Yes, with one swipe of the pen, er keyboard, you have just demolished the siddhanta of the entire Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya. You are so powerful!!! NOT!!! Since you are such an erudite religious scholar let's see if you can first expound this siddhanta in detail and then defeat it in detail. Let's see what you've really got.

[Baobabtree]

 

Yes, with one swipe of the pen, er keyboard, you have just demolished the siddhanta of the entire Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya

Doesn't Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Sampradaya refer to Gaudiya Vaishnavism as a whole and not just ISKCON (with whom my main problem is with ).

 

 

Since you are such an erudite religious scholar let's see if you can first expound this siddhanta in detail and then defeat it in detail. Let's see what you've really got.

Well, considering the lack of support I have for that point at the moment (at one point there was some sort of Dvaitan website that I think tried to refute the claim that Krishna was the purusha-avatar) I will indeed drop this point. However, I'll gladly expound my knowledge of Prabhupada's movement if you still want.

[Shakti-Fan]

 

...says that Lord Krishna is the the origin of all other incarnations.

In Gaudiya Vaisnavism the central teacher other than Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who wrote no books is Srila Rupa Goswamipada who by Mahaprabhu's inspiration wrote many books. One very important book of his is Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu. The basis of Rupa Goswami's presentation is the science of rasa or transcedental relationships or mellows.(BTW, mellows is Prabhupada's translation). So almost every analysis of the Gaudiyas is ultimately based on rasa, especially the conception that one Visnu tattva is higher than another or is original. As Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja says, " In tattva they are both one, but by rasa-vicara, consideration on the basis of rasa, They are not one." To me this is the "trade secret" of it all.

(BTW that quote was about Baladeva and Krsna but can be applied to all Visnu tattva).

[shiva]

 

Though, I've had several other objections which I've sadly forgotten another of my problems stems from Prabhupada's translation of the Srimad Bhagavatam. Where he claims that Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.6.16: says that Lord Krishna is the the origin of all other incarnations. However as another member here said Now for the most part this wouldn't be a big deal, but Prabhupada commonly stresses how one needs to follow a guru with proper understanding of Vaishnava theology, and who is reliable in his translations, the latter of which he appears to not always be as I've just demonstrated.

 

Edit: My last objection has to do with the parampara lineage of Prabhupada. Having done some research it appears there is some considerable gaps between some of the gurus they list (eg: Narottam Das Thakura and Visvanath Chakravarti actually had three other acharyas between them) yet they emphasise an unbroken dicsiplic succesion.

 

Don't get me wrong I respect Prabhupada and his movement for spreading Vaishnavism and bhakti all through out the world, but there are some major problems I have with what he taught. Furthermore I'm especially attracted to Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and I have no problem excepting that though Bhagavatam claims Krishna descended from Vishnu, this was only to enter the material world, and furthermore Vishnu himself was actually an expansion of Lord Krishna's cosmic form (hope I'm making sense here)

 

Well, I don't know if you are using the translation of Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.6.16 that appears in the actual Srimad-Bhagavatam which is published by ISKCON, or if you are refering to some other source of translation. But one thing you shold know is that Prabhupada didn't translate most of the 10th canto nor the entire 11th and 12th cantos of the Bhagavatam. He left his body before finishing the Bhagavatam translation. I think he finished upto Canto 10 chapter 13.

 

That being said, one of the main verses from the Bhagavatam for gaudiya vaisnavas is Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28

 

ete camsa-kalah pumsah

krsnas tu bhagavan svayam

indrari-vyakulam lokam

mrdayanti yuge yuge

 

ete -- all these; ca -- and; amsa -- plenary portions; kalah -- portions of the plenary portions; pumsah -- of the Supreme; krsnah -- Lord Krsna; tu -- but; bhagavan -- the Personality of Godhead; svayam -- in person; indra-ari -- the enemies of Indra; vyakulam -- disturbed; lokam -- all the planets; mrdayanti -- gives protection; yuge yuge -- in different ages.

 

TRANSLATION

 

All of the above-mentioned incarnations [all the visnu avatars] are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krsna is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists.

 

You should also understand that the verse you object to is part of the glorification where the devas are praising Krishna. To properly understand that verse it should be seen in the context of the other verses in that glorification. Your objection seems to be that the Bhagavatam doesn't really consider Krishna to be the source of all incarnations, if I am wrong on your theory, tell me so. Prabhupada did not invent this theological outlook, nor did his disciples. It is the teaching of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu according to the chroniclers of his life and teachings. It is also indisputably the teaching of the Bhagavatam. The basic teachings of the gaudiya sampradaya is that Krishna is the full embodiment of the personality of godhead (along with Sri Radha). We should not think that gaudiya vaisnavism teaches that Vishnu and Krishna, Rama and Narasingha, etc, are in any way different from each other.

 

Mahaprabhu himself discovered the Brahma Samhita, this is chapter 5 text 46

 

 

diparcir eva hi dasantaram abhyupetya

dipayate vivrta-hetu-samana-dharma

yas tadrg eva hi ca visnutaya vibhati

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

 

SYNONYMS

 

dipa-arcih--the flame of a lamp; eva--as; hi--certainly; dasa-antaram--another lamp; abhyupetya--expanding; dipayate--illuminates; vivrta-hetu--with its expanded cause; samana-dharma--equally powerful; yah--who; tadrk--similarly; eva--indeed; hi--certainly; ca--also; visnutaya--by His expansion as Lord Visnu; vibhati--illuminates; govindam--Govinda; adi-purusam--the original person; tam--Him; aham--I; bhajami--worship.

 

TRANSLATION

 

The light of one candle being communicated to other candles, although it burns separately in them, is the same in its quality. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda who exhibits Himself equally in the same mobile manner in His various manifestations.

 

PURPORT by Bhaktivinoda Thakura (although sometimes mistaken to be by Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura)

 

The presiding Deities of Hari-dhama, viz., Hari, Narayana, Visnu, etc., the subjective portions of Krsna, are being described. The majestic manifestation of Krsna is Narayana, Lord of Vaikuntha, whose subjective portion is Karanodakasayi Visnu, the prime cause, whose portion is Garbhodakasayi. Ksirodakasayi is again the subjective portion of Garbhodakasayi Visnu. The word "Visnu" indicates all-pervading, omnipresent and omniscient personality. In this sloka the activities of the subjective portions of the Divinity are enunciated by the specification of the nature of Ksirodakasayi Visnu. The personality of Visnu, the embodied form of the manifestive quality (sattva-guna) is quite distinct from that of Sambhu who is adulterated with mundane qualities. Visnu's subjective personality is on a level with that of Govinda. Both consist of the unadulterated substantive principle. Visnu in the form of the manifest causal principle is identical with Govinda as regards quality. The manifestive quality (sattva-guna) that is found to exist in the triple mundane quality, is an adulterated entity. being alloyed with the qualities of mundane activity and inertia. Brahma is the dislocated portion of the Divinity. manifested in the principle of mundane action, endowed with the functional nature of His subjective portion; and Sambhu is the dislocated portion of the Divinity manifested in the principle of mundane inertia possessing similarly the functional nature of His subjective portion. The reason for their being dislocated portions is that the two principles of mundane action and inertia being altogether wanting in the spiritual essence any entities, that are manifested in them, are located at a great distance from the Divinity Himself or His facsimiles. Although the mundane manifestive quality is of the adulterated kind, Visnu, the manifestation of the Divinity in the mundane manifestive quality. makes His appearance in the unadulterated manifestive principle which is a constituent of the mundane manifestive quality. Hence Visnu is the full subjective portion and belongs to the category of the superior isvaras. He is the Lord of the deluding potency and not alloyed with her. Visnu is the agent of Govinda's own subjective nature in the form of the prime cause. All the majestic attributes of Govinda, aggregating sixty in number, are fully present in His majestic manifestation, Narayana. Brahma and Siva are entities adulterated with mundane qualities. Though Visnu is also divine appearance in mundane quality (guna-avatara), still He is not adulterated. The appearance of Narayana in the form of Maha-Visnu, the appearance of Maha-Visnu in the form of Garbhodakasayi and the appearance of Visnu in the form of Ksirodakasayi, are examples of the ubiquitous function of the Divinity. Visnu is Godhead Himself, and the two other guna-avataras and all the other gods are entities possessing authority in subordination to Him. From the subjective majestic manifestation of the supreme self-luminous Govinda emanate Karanodakasayi, Garbhodakasayi, Ksirodakasayi and all other derivative subjective divine descents (avataras) such as Rama, etc., analogous to communicated light appearing in different candles, shining by the operation of the spiritual potency of Govinda.

 

The conception of Vishnu in gaudiya vaisnavism is different then in some other vaisnava sampradayas. The gaudiya theological conception is that the Lord in his full complete manifestation is Sri Krishna (And Sri Radha as his female counterpart). Sri Radha Krishna manifests all of the personality of Godhead, whereas other manifestations of God do not. Therefore in this conception all the incarnations of God, while all being one and the same entity viz. like the fire of one candle being the same fire in other candles, the manifestation of God who is displaying all of God's personality is considered to be the original and source of all other incarnations and expansions. Just like if your personality is fully displayed when you are amongst close friends and a different lesser manifestation of your personality is displayed for other people you relate with, it can be said that the original and source of your various personalties is the one which is manifesting your personality in full with your close friends. This is the conception of the gaudiya sampradaya and the teaching of he Bhagavatam. Radha Krishna is the full manifestation of God's personality, therefore other manifestations of God can be considered to be expansions from Radha Krishna. Lakshmi Narayana display a less intimate manifestation of God's personality then Radha Krishsna, therefore although they are one and the same, Lakshmi Narayana are considered to have their origin in Radha Krishna. This is not the teaching of Prabhupada, this is the teaching of gaudiya vaisnavism.

 

You also said

 

 

As I had mentioned in another thread I don't think the philosophy or works of Srila Prabhupada are without flaw. I'd like to outline my problems with his philosophical ideas here, and give a chance for any of his followers to address these problems I have.

 

First and foremost is the demi-god concept (a concept I see in not just ISKCON, but Vaishnavism all together). Amongst the so-called demigods are Indra, and Yamaraj. However in RigVeda 1:164:46 we find

 

 

This would contradict the idea held by ISKCON that these deities are seperate from Vishnu and inferior compared to him, seeming to indicate that rather they are other facets or forms of Vishnu.

 

There's more to come, but unfortunatley I have to run at the moment.

 

Hairbol all!

 

The same teaching is found in the Gita

 

 

 

Chapter 10, Verse 19.

The Blessed Lord said: Yes, I will tell you of My splendorous manifestations, but only of those which are prominent, O Arjuna, for My opulence is limitless.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 20.

I am the Self, O Gudakesa, seated in the hearts of all creatures. I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 21.

Of the Adityas I am Visnu, of lights I am the radiant sun, I am Marici of the Maruts, and among the stars I am the moon.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 22.

Of the Vedas I am the Sama-veda; of the demigods I am Indra; of the senses I am the mind, and in living beings I am the living force [knowledge].

 

Chapter 10, Verse 23.

Of all the Rudras I am Lord Siva; of the Yaksas and Raksasas I am the Lord of wealth [Kuvera]; of the Vasus I am fire [Agni], and of mountains I am Meru.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 24.

Of priests, O Arjuna, know Me to be the chief, Brhaspati, the lord of devotion. Of generals I am Skanda, the lord of war; and of bodies of water I am the ocean.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 25.

Of the great sages I am Bhrgu; of vibrations I am the transcendental om. Of sacrifices I am the chanting of the holy names [japa], and of immovable things I am the Himalayas.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 26.

Of all trees I am the holy fig tree, and among sages and demigods I am Narada. Of the singers of the gods [Gandharvas] I am Citraratha, and among perfected beings I am the sage Kapila.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 27.

Of horses know Me to be Uccaihsrava, who rose out of the ocean, born of the elixir of immortality; of lordly elephants I am Airavata, and among men I am the monarch.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 28.

Of weapons I am the thunderbolt; among cows I am the surabhi, givers of abundant milk. Of procreators I am Kandarpa, the god of love, and of serpents I am Vasuki, the chief.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 29.

Of the celestial Naga snakes I am Ananta; of the aquatic deities I am Varuna. Of departed ancestors I am Aryama, and among the dispensers of law I am Yama, lord of death.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 30.

Among the Daitya demons I am the devoted Prahlada; among subduers I am time; among the beasts I am the lion, and among birds I am Garuda, the feathered carrier of Visnu.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 31.

Of purifiers I am the wind; of the wielders of weapons I am Rama; of fishes I am the shark, and of flowing rivers I am the Ganges.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 32.

Of all creations I am the beginning and the end and also the middle, O Arjuna. Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the self, and among logicians I am the conclusive truth.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 33.

Of letters I am the letter A, and among compounds I am the dual word. I am also inexhaustible time, and of creators I am Brahma, whose manifold faces turn everywhere.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 34.

I am all-devouring death, and I am the generator of all things yet to be. Among women I am fame, fortune, speech, memory, intelligence, faithfulness and patience.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 35.

Of hymns I am the Brhat-sama sung to the Lord Indra, and of poetry I am the Gayatri verse, sung daily by Brahmanas. Of months I am November and December, and of seasons I am flower-bearing spring.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 36.

I am also the gambling of cheats, and of the splendid I am the splendor. I am victory, I am adventure, and I am the strength of the strong.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 37.

Of the descendants of Vrsni I am Vasudeva, and of the Pandavas I am Arjuna. Of the sages I am Vyasa, and among great thinkers I am Usana.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 38.

Among punishments I am the rod of chastisement, and of those who seek victory, I am morality. Of secret things I am silence, and of the wise I am wisdom.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 39.

Furthermore, O Arjuna, I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being--moving or unmoving--that can exist without Me.

 

What Krishna is trying to tell us is that ultimately everything is his manifestation, He is everywhere manifesting everything. Not just the devas. In the above he mentions all sorts of prominent and poetic manifestations to try to get you to understand how all pervasive is His presence and influence.

 

 

Chapter 10, Verse 40.

O mighty conqueror of enemies, there is no end to My divine manifestations. What I have spoken to you is but a mere indication of My infinite opulences.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 41.

Know that all beautiful, glorious, and mighty creations spring from but a spark of My splendor.

 

The things you quote from the Rig Veda can be understood in different ways. Because God is the actual controller of everything, therefore whatever the devas supposedly have control over, is actually under the control of God. The devas have no independence, even though many people may worship the devas as if they do in fact have the power to grant their wishes. But in fact Krishna says

 

 

Chapter 7, Verse 20.

Those whose minds are distorted by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.

 

Chapter 7, Verse 21.

I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship the demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to some particular deity.

 

Chapter 7, Verse 22.

Endowed with such a faith, he seeks favors of a particular demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone.

 

Therefore the Rig Veda teaches:

 

 

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.

 

Similarly today outside of India they call him Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, Brahman, etc.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

Don't get me wrong I respect Prabhupada and his movement for spreading Vaishnavism and bhakti all through out the world, but there are some major problems I have with what he taught. Furthermore I'm especially attracted to Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and I have no problem excepting that though Bhagavatam claims Krishna descended from Vishnu, this was only to enter the material world, and furthermore Vishnu himself was actually an expansion of Lord Krishna's cosmic form (hope I'm making sense here).

 

Though I don't have time to answer the points you brought up, I would just like to point out that these particular teachings you object to are taught directly by Caitanya Mahaprabhu and his first disciples (the six goswamis). So your objection really isn't with Prabhupada but with Caitanya Mahaprabhu and his whole lineage.

 

There is nothing wrong with that, and of course you have the right to your own opinion and beliefs. It seems your belief system is closer to Hinduism where you identify all demigods as representations of the "formless God" (Brahman). That is completely opposite to Caitanya Mahaprabhu's teachings, where he accepts all living entities, including the demigods, to be eternal servants of Krishna, who is the cause of all causes.

 

That the demigods are not God is something very thoroughly expounded by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. If you would like to discuss that topic, we could start another thread.

[theist]

 

This would contradict the idea held by ISKCON that these deities are seperate from Vishnu and inferior compared to him, seeming to indicate that rather they are other facets or forms of Vishnu.

 

 

Everything and everyone is a facet of Vishnu. In one sense you are a facet of Vishnu, but that does not make you the Supreme Being. One Source and from Him everything else takes it's being. This is basic oneness. So now we have to account for the differences.

 

Krsna says: "In one sense I am everything, yet I am independent." -Gita

 

So Krsna is declaring His own separate identity apart from all others. He Himself is greater than the sum of His parts. Or to put it in line with your metaphor the Jewel is greater than the sum of it's facets and has a separate existence all to it's itself.

 

Krsna is always more than everything that comes from Himself. To say that Krsna is everything is actually a limitation artifically imposed upon Him.

 

And that includes universal creators and destroyers etc.

[Baobabtree]

 

There is nothing wrong with that, and of course you have the right to your own opinion and beliefs. It seems your belief system is closer to Hinduism where you identify all demigods as representations of the "formless God" (Brahman).

Well, not exactly. I ultimately reject the ideas of Advaita Vedanta, and I'm leaning towards either MahaVishnu or Krishna as being the supreme Godhead, it's just I thought the verse, made it seem like Indra, Agni etc. were expansions of Vishnu/Krishna.

 

 

All of the above-mentioned incarnations [all the visnu avatars] are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krsna is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists.

My main objection to that though, was that I'd found a refutation to this on a Sri Vaishnava or Madhvan Vaishnava site, though I suppose this point becomes rather irrelevant considering the analogy you posted below. It still makes me wonder about the translations ISKCON puts out, especially when they constantly berate other groups for their "inaccurate" translations of certain texts.

 

 

What Krishna is trying to tell us is that ultimately everything is his manifestation, He is everywhere manifesting everything. Not just the devas. In the above he mentions all sorts of prominent and poetic manifestations to try to get you to understand how all pervasive is His presence and influence.

Makes sense, but in the same breath it feels kind of odd to except this, considering the Vedas constantly praise these lesser deities.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

 

My main objection to that though, was that I'd found a refutation to this on a Sri Vaishnava or Madhvan Vaishnava site, though I suppose this point becomes rather irrelevant considering the analogy you posted below. It still makes me wonder about the translations ISKCON puts out, especially when they constantly berate other groups for their "inaccurate" translations of certain texts.

 

"Refutations" will go back and forth for ever. The sanskrit language functions in such a way that one can derive thousands of unique meanings from a single sentence. Thus the pandits have debated the intricacies of certain points for thousands of years.

 

Ultimately debate and refutation has no value for the soul, because it is based on the mind and intellect. Only by personal revelation can one really know what the ultimate meaning of a controversial verse is. One chooses the path of saints he wants to follow and through sadhana things will be revealed to him. The back and forth debates do not establish truth, they establish the intellectual capacity of the pandits to argue.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

 

That the demigods are not God is something very thoroughly expounded by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. .

 

 

Where in Bhagvat Gita does he say this explicitly, can you quote this please.

On the contrarily Arjun had to say this,

You are the primal God, the most ancient Person. You are the ultimate resort of all the universe. You are the knower, the object of knowledge, and the supreme abode. The entire universe is pervaded by You, O Lord of the infinite form. (11.38)

 

You are Vaayu, Yama, Agni, Varuna, Shashaanka, and Brahmaa as well as the father of Brahmaa. Salutations to You a thousand times, and again and again salutations to You. (11.39)

 

Very much in agreement with Vedas

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call him (it) Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[theist]

 

"Refutations" will go back and forth for ever. The sanskrit language functions in such a way that one can derive thousands of unique meanings from a single sentence. Thus the pandits have debated the intricacies of certain points for thousands of years.

 

Ultimately debate and refutation has no value for the soul, because it is based on the mind and intellect. Only by personal revelation can one really know what the ultimate meaning of a controversial verse is. One chooses the path of saints he wants to follow and through sadhana things will be revealed to him. The back and forth debates do not establish truth, they establish the intellectual capacity of the pandits to argue.

[gHari]

Of course one should always respect the demigods and one should pray to Ganesh, asking that he remove the obstacles that hinder our devotion to Bhagavan Sri Krsna.

 

Lord Krishna teaches about proper demigod worship in His Bhagavad-gita:

http://vedabase.net/bg/7/20/en

 

http://vedabase.net/bg/7/21/en

 

http://vedabase.net/bg/7/22/en

 

http://vedabase.net/bg/7/23/en

 

http://vedabase.net/bg/9/23/en

 

http://vedabase.net/bg/9/25/en

 

Guru Bhaktivedanta Swami wrote:

 

In The Nectar of Devotion SrIla PrabhupAda writes:

 

One should begin the worship of the demigod Ganapati, who drives away all impediments in the execution of devotional service. In the Brahma-saMhitA it is stated that Ganapati worships the lotus feet of Lord NRsiMhadeva and in that way has become auspicious for the devotees in clearing out all impediments. Therefore, all devotees should worship Ganapati.

 

 

But balance that reference against this letter to SivAnanda DAsa (August 25, 1971):

 

So far worshiping Ganesa is concerned, that is not necessary. Not that it should be done on a regular basis. If you like you can pray to Ganapati for removing all impediments on the path of Krishna Consciousness. That you can do if you like.

 

 

And finally, consider this letter, sent to "My dear Sons" in Evanston, Illinois, on December 28, 1974. (SrIla PrabhupAda sent nearly identical messages to several other devotees.)

 

I do not encourage you to worship this demigod, Ganesa. It is not required, it is not necessary. Simply worship KRSNa. Perform nice devotional service to KRSNa. Then your lives will certainly become perfect. Of course if one has got some sentiment for achieving the blessings of Ganesa for accumulating large sums of money to serve KRSNa, then he may perform this Ganesa worship, privately, not making a public show.

 

 

[krishnaleela]

 

Well, not exactly. I ultimately reject the ideas of Advaita Vedanta, and I'm leaning towards either MahaVishnu or Krishna as being the supreme Godhead, it's just I thought the verse, made it seem like Indra, Agni etc. were expansions of Vishnu/Krishna.

 

 

Hinduism is not Advaita Vedanta ... as the Upanishads are not Shankara's commentaries on them.

[Baobabtree]

Hinduism is not Advaita Vedanta ... as the Upanishads are not Shankara's commentaries on them.

I should have clarified that there. I do self identify as Hindu, but the subsect of Hinduism he is refering to is Advaita.

[Kulapavana]

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

You can spend a very long time explaining that sruti verse. Your explanation will depend on your realization and your particular taste (rasa) for the Transcendence. We call the One from this sloka "Krishna". Do you have a problem with that? Read this verse again.

 

You find fault with Prabhupada's lineage. May we ask about yours? Whose disciple are you? Or maybe you are just a freelance thinker?

 

One can find fault in everything and in anything - that is the easy part. The hard part is to present a cohesive and all-encompassing philosophical system for others to poke holes in

[sopatel]

After reading this thread I have only one thing to say....

 

If religion cannot unite one human being with another (as we see sometimes here), how do you expect to be united with God!!!

 

Think about it guys...discussions are great, we learn so many new things from everybody on the board but many times I feel a tinge of ego and false pride in your posts. I am sorry if I may have hurt anyone.

 

Jai Shri Krishna

[khbbind]

i think its useless about thinking the philosophy. Its better to come out of the relegion. Be free and then think who am I? Then you will definiltly find the philosophy.

[Beggar]

?

 

 

 

[theist]

 

After reading this thread I have only one thing to say....

 

If religion cannot unite one human being with another (as we see sometimes here), how do you expect to be united with God!!!

 

Think about it guys...discussions are great, we learn so many new things from everybody on the board but many times I feel a tinge of ego and false pride in your posts. I am sorry if I may have hurt anyone.

 

Jai Shri Krishna

 

This forum most often reminds me of my uncles's rock tumbler. When I was a child I remember he had this device that rotated endless filled with agates he found on the beach. he would put then in all rough and after a long time they would become smooth and polished by their constant rubbing in to each other and come out quite beautiful in the end.

 

This is not an excuse for my (or anyone else's) bad behavior, only a way of seeing a positive outcome at the end.

 

Of course their are better ways to get to the goal but...

 

It is good to mention these things sopatel. We do take ourselves a little too seriously and need reminders frequently.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Kulapavana

 

 

 

Quote:

 

You can spend a very long time explaining that sruti verse. Your explanation will depend on your realization and your particular taste (rasa) for the Transcendence. We call the One from this sloka "Krishna". Do you have a problem with that? Read this verse again.

 

 

 

I don’t know if this post is meant for me, but please allow me to share my views all the same because I have quoted this srutis verse many times, infact I quoted bg sloke 11. 39 to in support of it.

You are right explanation will depand on personal realisation and rasa.

I certainly do not have one iota of problem of that one to be Krishna for he is also my worship able deva.

Problems starts when one denigrates someone elses choice to be half or semi or incomplte god. It would be perfect to describe as it is describe in scriptures as devas but demigod presupposes its inferiority and that is not the case.

Defination of demigod;

In the Bhagavadgita (or in any Hindu scripture), Lord Krishna NEVER uses the term “demigod”

 

As an adjective, deva means “heavenly, divine, or highly excellent”.

 

As a noun, deva means God or Deity (cf. Latin DEVS ) ~ and deva is a common name for Lord Indra.

 

As a plural noun, devA refers to the Gods ~ especially the 33 prime Deities ~ and deva can refer generally to any image of Divinity or Deity.

 

Sanskrit DEVA is exactly cognate with Latin DEUS, which plainly indicates GOD.

 

The prefix DEMI- means HALF, so that DEMI-GOD means HALF-GOD or PARTLY GOD.

 

Why use such a belittling term for ANY Deity? Gods are Gods!

 

Indra is the King of Gods, Agni is the God of Fire, Sarasvati is the Goddess of Knowledge ~ there is NO half-measure about it.

 

And there is only ONE Mahadeva, who is certainly not a “partial” deity!

 

Agni is Fire ~ the perfect conception of Fire ~ and wherever the nature of Fire is present, there is Agnideva ~ the Fire God ~ the Lord of Fire ~ Fire in its essence ~ the very Self of Fire.

 

Terms such as “controller”, “administrator”, or “demigod”, are all rather pathetic titles for such a Deity.

 

And Lord Indra can not adequately be described as the “controller of rain”.

 

There is one Sun, but there are many Days ~ and all are Adityas.

 

One God with many aspects ~ all equally divine ~ a faceless Deity who projects ALL faces.

 

If Demigod is understood as “part (or aspect) OF God”, rather than “part God”, then perhaps it does have some value.

 

 

Ashoka has declared: “Truly, if a person extols his own sect and disparages other sects with a view to glorifying his sect owing merely to his attachment to it, he injures his own sect very severely by acting in this way.”

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Kulapavana]

 

Problems starts when one denigrates someone elses choice to be half or semi or incomplte god. It would be perfect to describe as it is describe in scriptures as devas but demigod presupposes its inferiority and that is not the case.

(...)

Ashoka has declared: “Truly, if a person extols his own sect and disparages other sects with a view to glorifying his sect owing merely to his attachment to it, he injures his own sect very severely by acting in this way.”

 

 

Pranam Ganeshprasad,

 

Yes, to some extent that mentality can be present in our movement, and in the teachings of Srila Prabhupada as well. Prabhupada sometimes shows more tolerance and acceptance to Christianity than to other Vedic traditions or lineages. He did it for the sake of preaching in the West, to separate us from swindlers in the garb of spiritual teachers, but that approach does have it's drawbacks.

 

On one hand Prabhupada was trying to show the universal nature of Krsna Consciousness, but in the process he antagonized many people with his criticisms. Many of his disciples became trapped in such a critical attitude. Vedas can be explained in many ways. He chose one he thought was the most appropriate for his movement.

[raghu]

 

First and foremost is the demi-god concept (a concept I see in not just ISKCON, but Vaishnavism all together). Amongst the so-called demigods are Indra, and Yamaraj. However in RigVeda 1:164:46 we find This would contradict the idea held by ISKCON that these deities are seperate from Vishnu and inferior compared to him, seeming to indicate that rather they are other facets or forms of Vishnu.

 

There's more to come, but unfortunatley I have to run at the moment.

 

Hairbol all!

 

There is nothing about this mantra that contradicts the Vaishnava point of view. When the shrutis refer to Brahman by such anya-devata names such as Indra, Agni, etc then these references can only be properly understood to refer to Vishnu. Vishnu does have many names, and these include some names that are also names of other deities. Therefore context is important. One cannot argue that anya-devatas are different forms of Vishnu because even elsewhere in shruti the deva-taratamya (hierarchy of dieties) with Vishnu at the top is upheld.

[suchandra]

 

In the Bhagavadgita (or in any Hindu scripture), Lord Krishna NEVER uses the term “demigod”.

 

 

Prabhupāda: Yes. Don’t dictate God. The demigod worshipers, they dictate, dhanaṁ dehi, rūpaṁ dehi, yaśo de… This dehi, dehi, dehi. Therefore they are condemned. In the Bhagavad-gītā they have been condemned. Kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ prapadyante [Bg. 7.20]. He is so kāmuka, he is ordering God. Kāmais tais tair hṛta-jñānāḥ. But that order cannot be carried by God, but the demigods, they sometimes become flattered and give this benediction. So Krishna said, tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām: “This kind of flattering the demigods and take some benediction,” antavat tu phalaṁ teṣāṁ tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām. Order… You cannot order God, but you can flatter these demigods. And therefore people are very much fond of flattering these demigods because…

Indian man (1): Just to get material wealth. Material happiness.

Prabhupāda: Yes, that’s it. Tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām. Antavat tu phalaṁ teṣām. All this material happiness, you may get it, but it will be finished with your body. Krishna says that teṣāṁ satata-yuktānāṁ bhajatāṁ prīti-pūrvakam, dadāmi buddhi-yoga [Bg. 10.10]. He says, “I will give intelligence. There is no question of asking. If you become a devotee, sincere devotee, I’ll give you everything without your asking.” You understand, follow? So you qualify yourself. That is wanted. That qualification is sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇam [Bg. 18.66]. He is always prepared to give you light. Just like sunlight is open always, but if you keep yourself in the dark room, how you can take benefit of the sunlight? Your business is to come before the sun; then everything will be all right. [break] …used to sing like that, sab ke sampatti de bhagavān. Raghupati rāghava rāja… You know? Sab ke sampatti de bhagavān. De bhagavān? What is this nonsense? He’s asking, de bhagavān.

Tamāla Krishna: What does that mean, “de bhagavān?”

Guḍākeśa: “Give me.”

Prabhupāda: Give him. Sab ke sampatti de bhagavān.

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: That’s for the demigods.

Prabhupāda: No, he has no sense what is God. This is going on.

 

Morning Walks

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

January 22-23, 1976, Māyāpura

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam suchandra,

 

It does not help when one changes the context of the point I had made that is the word demigod does not do justice to Deva.

Even then to your point, Krishna Bhagvan does not condemn Deva worship in the Gita,

Infect he has encouraged it in chapter three and seventeen.

And talk about shooting one self in the foot, no vaishnav would rubbish Bhajan sung for Lord Ram

The version popularized by Mahatma Gandhi is:

रघुपित राघव राजाराम , पतित पावन सीताराम

सीताराम सीताराम, भज प्यारे तू सीताराम

ईश्वर अल्लाह तेरो नाम, सब को सन्मित दे भगवान

Transliteration:

 

<DIR>Raghupati Raghav raja Ram, patit pavan Sita Ram

Sita Ram Sita Ram, Bhaj pyare tu Sitaram

Ishwar Allah tero naam, Saab ko Sanmti de Bhagavan

 

</DIR>Translation:

 

<DIR>Lord Rama, Chief of the house of Raghu

Uplifters of those who have fallen, (O divine couple) Sita and Rama

Beloved, praise Sita and Rama

God or Allah is your name

Lord, bless everyone with wisdom

 

Where does it say Sampati de, ie wealth?

 

Even if it did Lord Krishna says four types of dovetees worship me one of them is arthi.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

</DIR>