ISKCON - "really Hindu" or not?

[Sirona]

Dear Friends,

my question is whether ISKCON can be considered as "really hindu" or "really Krishna" or "really in the spirit of the Bhagavad-Gita" or not and why (not)? I read Prabhupad's Gita "as it is" and I liked it very much but I did not join the ISKCON community cause I did not feel well about them. Now I read a lot of other information but not being of hindu origin I find it very confusing. Please tell me what you think so I might find the answer. You may send me an e-mail too: sirona@unicum.de. Thanks a lot.

[Gauracandra]

You might want to read the titled posting "Who is a Hindu?". Personally I don't consider myself Hindu, but others might consider me as such. Some people will say you are born Hindu ie. you must be Indian. This would be a racial view of Hinduism. Others view different philosophies as Hindu or not Hindu. So it depends on what we mean by the word "Hindu". Ultimately we believe in Sanatan Dharma which can be translated roughly as the "eternal religion" or "eternal path". We believe that devotion/love of God is the eternal religion/function of the soul. Thus if a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Jew etc... develops such sentiments then that path will lead them to God. It should be noted that the word Hindu itself is nowhere to be found in any "Hindu" scripture. But read that posting "Who is a Hindu?" and it might help some.

 

Gauracandra

[Guest guest]

In my opinion, ISKCON cannot be considered 'hindu' because hindu is a religion and to identify the society in such a way contradicts Sri Krishna's teachings to 'abandon' all varieites of 'religion'. ISKCON is just what the name suggests ... a 'society'. A society of Vainavas, meaning servants of Sri Krishna.

 

 

Dear Friends,

my question is whether ISKCON can be considered as "really hindu" or "really Krishna" or "really in the spirit of the Bhagavad-Gita" or not and why (not)? I read Prabhupad's Gita "as it is" and I liked it very much but I did not join the ISKCON community cause I did not feel well about them. Now I read a lot of other information but not being of hindu origin I find it very confusing. Please tell me what you think so I might find the answer. You may send me an e-mail too: sirona@unicum.de. Thanks a lot.

[Guest guest]

 

In my opinion, ISKCON cannot be considered 'hindu' because hindu is a religion and to identify the society in such a way contradicts Sri Krishna's teachings to 'abandon' all varieites of 'religion'. ISKCON is just what the name suggests ... a 'society'. A society of Vainavas, meaning servants of Sri Krishna.

 

good answer

[Guest guest]

Thank you prabhu!

 

 

good answer

[shiva]

"Hindu" is not a religion as a previous guest mentioned. Hinduism is a word that denotes a category of religions all of which share certain beliefs i.e samsara, karma, mantras, authority of vedas etc.

 

Popularly among many Indians the concept of Hindu has more of a cultural and ethnic inference then a religious one. To be a Hindu to many Indians means being an Indian non muslim more then anything else.

 

So is Iskcon Hindu?

 

Srila Prabhupada sometimes would preach no. But there was a purpose to that. Indologists would claim that Iskcon is Hindu, most Indians would claim Iskcon is Hindu, and often times people in Iskcon claim Iskcon is Hindu as well. In a sense Iskcon is Hindu because Hindu is an umbrella term which covers all faiths which accept the vedas as divine revelation. Srila Prabhupada didn't want Iskcon to be seen as presenting "Hinduism" in the non Hindu world. In India it is alright to claim to be Hindu because most people understand that Hinduism is not a specific religious belief system but an umbrella term or a category of religions. In the west when Srila Prabhupada preached, the masses of people had very little to no knowledge of Indian or Hindu religions. In most people's minds Hindus were polytheists (or monists i.e impersonalists, mayavadis) who believe in the caste system. That was the extent of most people's idea of what Hinduism was all about. Since gaudiya vaisnavism (Iskcon) does not teach polytheism, nor monism, and rejects the caste system, Srila Prabhupada decided that it was wise to claim in the west that Iskcon is not Hinduism.

 

In reality Hinduism is a word invented by the British. When they came in contact with India they used a Persian word for Indians, which was hindu (derived from sindhu: river, India near Persia was called Hindustan: The land of rivers). The British lumped the various vedic related religious sects of India into a single word; Hinduism. To scholars Iskcon is Hindu because it is a vaisnava sect which bases it's beliefs and practices on the sruti and smriti (vedic literature and associated literature). Iskcon is a branch of a mainstream Hindu religious sect to Indologists and students of religion and to most Indians.

 

But for preaching purposes outside of India Srila Prabhupada didn't want Iskcon to be seen as Hindu because most people had a misconception about Hinduism. Today that has changed somewhat, so often times you will see devotees preach that Iskcon is a traditional mainstream Hindu religion.

[Guest guest]

[quote=shiva

In reality Hinduism is a word invented by the British. When they came in contact with India they used a Persian word for Indians, which was hindu (derived from sindhu: river, India near Persia was called Hindustan: The land of rivers). The British lumped the various vedic related religious sects of India into a single word; Hinduism. To scholars Iskcon is Hindu because it is a vaisnava sect which bases it's beliefs and practices on the sruti and smriti (vedic literature and associated literature). Iskcon is a branch of a mainstream Hindu religious sect to Indologists and students of religion and to most Indians. QUOTE]

 

accualy thats wrong, it was the muslim moguls that gave the indian the name sindhus, that became the word hindus.. the people by the indhus river

[Guest guest]

 

quoting shiva:

(In reality Hinduism is a word invented by the British. When they came in contact with India they used a Persian word for Indians, which was hindu (derived from sindhu: river, India near Persia was called Hindustan: The land of rivers). The British lumped the various vedic related religious sects of India into a single word; Hinduism. To scholars Iskcon is Hindu because it is a vaisnava sect which bases it's beliefs and practices on the sruti and smriti (vedic literature and associated literature). Iskcon is a branch of a mainstream Hindu religious sect to Indologists and students of religion and to most Indians.)

 

actually thats wrong, it was the muslim moguls that gave the indian the name sindhus, that became the word hindus.. the people by the indhus river

 

Really, they changed the name of Bombay to Mumbai, so why don't the Hindus now give up this false identity as "Hindus"?

[Guest guest]

Hindu is just a name used for identification, since most people outside of Vedic traditions do not know the term Sanatana Dharma. Of course Sanatana Dharma is the most accurate name of our Path, but Hinduism is the most recognizable label for out path.

 

Originally Christians were not called Christians but Nazerenes.. it was outsiders who started calling them Christians, and the label stuck, so now they all use it. The same has happened with the term Hindu.

 

ISKCON gets more crediblity by acknowledge it is a sect of the ancient Hindu religion, rather than some new religious movement. New religious movements are looked at as cults.. and Hare Krishnas have had to fight the cult stereotype by admitting they are a Hindu sect (Hinduism is considered a major world religion, not a cult), like for example, when they were fighting to build the Temple in Russia.

 

In India Vaishnavas are considered a Hindu sect.. not a non-Hindu sect.

 

No one should be ashamed to be part of the Hindu religion. Religion and Yoga mean the same thing: to link or join together.

[shiva]

 

 

accualy thats wrong, it was the muslim moguls that gave the indian the name sindhus, that became the word hindus.. the people by the indhus river

 

 

The first time the word hindu appears in any written language is in the Avesta (ancient zoroastrian scripture). It is commonly accepted by Indologists that the word Hindu has it's origin in sindhu from the Persians use of that word as hindu. The ancient Persian language was very similar to sanskrit, kinda like the difference between portuguese and spanish. Anyways in that language they would use "h" instead of "s" often times. Therefore they called sindhu; hindu, just like they called asura; ahura in old persian.

 

From Wikipedia

 

 

In the Rigveda, theoretically the holiest Hindu scripture, the Indo-Aryans mention their land as Sapta Sindhu (the land of the seven rivers, one of them being the Indus; sapta=seven). This corresponds to hapta-hindu in the Avesta (Vendidad: Fargard 1.18)—the holiest scriptures of the Iranian Zoroastrians. The term was used for people who lived in the Indian sub-continent around or beyond the river Sindhu.

 

 

From Sita Ram Goel in "HinduTemples: What Happened to Them? Part 2"

 

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/htemples1/index.htm

http://www.bharatvani.org/books/htemples2/index.htm

 

"There is, therefore, no running away from the fact that the word “Hindu” occurs for the first time in the Avesta of the ancient Iranians who used this word for designating this country as well as its people. They did not have to coin this word out of thin air. It was simply their way of pronouncing the word “Sindhu”, the name of the mighty river which has always been a major landmark for travellers to this country from the north and the west. To start with, the word seems to have been used for provinces and the people in the vicinity of the Sindhu. But in due course, it was extended to cover all parts of this country and all its people. The word also spread to countries to the north and west of Iran. The ancient Greeks were quite familiar with the words “Indus” and “Indoi” - their way of pronouncing “Sindhu” and “Sindhîs”. The ancient Arabs, Turks (Šakas, KuSãNas, etc.), Mongolian (HûNas, Kirãtas, etc.) and the Chinese were also familiar with the word, sometimes in their own variations on it such as “Shin-tu”. It may thus be said that the word “Hindu” had acquired a national connotation, since the days of the Avesta, although in the eyes of only the foreigners. At the same time, it may be noted that the word was oblivious of the fact that “Hindus” were organized in numerous castes, and d to many religious sects.

 

 

There is also evidence that at some stage in their history the ancient Iranians started using the word “Hindu” in more than a purely descriptive sense. The word seems to have acquired for them a derogatory meaning as well. Scholars are not quite certain, nor in complete agreement, about the nature of differences that developed between the Vedics of this country and the Avestans of Iran. The two people had had much in common, and for a long time, in the realm of language, religion, rituals, and ethical norms. It is surmised that the rift appeared with the rise of Zarathustra (Zoroaster) as a religious reformer in the region round Bãhlîka (Balkh), and became bitter by the time the Archaeminid Dynasty rose to power in Iran. Zorastrianism became the state religion of Iran, and the Iranians started looking down upon the Hindus as worshippers of “dev” (Skt. deva), their word for demon. They were using the word “Ahura” (Skt. Asura) for their own Deity."

[Guest guest]

what i have hear.. zarathrusta had a debate with a holyman and after being defited, he left india to start his own religion

[Guest guest]

Iskcon is very very similar to Christianity,except the God there is Jesus or Heavenly father whereas in ISKCON its Krsna,Christianity calls other Gods as Satuns work to divert us and ISKCON calls all other Gods like Shiva or Muruga as Demi gods and not worthy of worshipping.

ISKCON is very much a westernised version of Krishna worship,it doesnt glorify any other Hindu god and just belittles their value so to call it Hinduism isnt right at all.I think the westerners are always in support of Monotheistic worship and they consider the Polytheistic concept of Hinduism as occult or Demigod worship Since ISKCON isnt that way it became very popular in USA and got their support.If you ask any Hindu Priest he will say he never followed or observed ISKCON in the devotional way at all.

[Guest guest]

 

ISKCON calls all other Gods like Shiva or Muruga as Demi gods and not worthy of worshipping.

 

This is just not true. Have you been to ISKCON and heard their philosophy? I'd suggest speaking to some senior devotee there to get an idea. Acccording to ISKCON, the demi gods are great personalities and every bit as worthy of our respect as anybody else. We just don't worship them as the Supreme Lord, that's all. In fact, we're advised to pray to the demi gods to enable us to become more sincere in our devotion to Sri Krishna.

 

 

It doesnt glorify any other Hindu god and just belittles their value so to call it Hinduism isnt right at all.

 

Another remark with no basis at all. Perhaps you can explain to us then why some ISKCON centres have demi god deities if they have no respect and only mean to belittle them?

[Guest guest]

 

Iskcon is very very similar to Christianity,except the God there is Jesus or Heavenly father whereas in ISKCON its Krsna,Christianity calls other Gods as Satuns work to divert us and

 

Their beliefs are very different from Orthodox Christianity on most of their teachings. The only thing they have in common is belief in One God. Other than that, orthodox Christians reject reincarnation, chakras, the existence of demigods and their celestial lokas, the chanting of Vedic mantras, Guru-shisya relationship, Murti worship, and so much more that Hare Krishnas believe in.

 

 

ISKCON calls all other Gods like Shiva or Muruga as Demi gods and not worthy of worshipping.

 

ISKCON does not call Shiva a demigod, but an expansion of Krsna, who they consider the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

 

ISKCON is very much a westernised version of Krishna worship,it doesnt glorify any other Hindu god and just belittles their value so to call it Hinduism isnt right at all.

 

what is a Hindu god? the gods (devas) were known all around the world, including the ancient western world (Europe), where they were just called by other names.

 

 

I think the westerners are always in support of Monotheistic worship and they consider the Polytheistic concept of Hinduism as occult or Demigod worship Since ISKCON isnt that way it became very popular in USA and got their support.If you ask any Hindu Priest he will say he never followed or observed ISKCON in the devotional way at all.

 

There is no polytheistic concept in the ancient Vedic religion. Have you read the Upanishads or the Bhagavad Gita? They speak of the One Brahman... not many Brahmans.

[Guest guest]

 

Hindu is just a name used for identification, since most people outside of Vedic traditions do not know the term Sanatana Dharma. Of course Sanatana Dharma is the most accurate name of our Path, but Hinduism is the most recognizable label for out path.

 

Originally Christians were not called Christians but Nazerenes.. it was outsiders who started calling them Christians, and the label stuck, so now they all use it. The same has happened with the term Hindu.

 

ISKCON gets more crediblity by acknowledge it is a sect of the ancient Hindu religion, rather than some new religious movement. New religious movements are looked at as cults.. and Hare Krishnas have had to fight the cult stereotype by admitting they are a Hindu sect (Hinduism is considered a major world religion, not a cult), like for example, when they were fighting to build the Temple in Russia.

 

In India Vaishnavas are considered a Hindu sect.. not a non-Hindu sect.

 

No one should be ashamed to be part of the Hindu religion. Religion and Yoga mean the same thing: to link or join together.

 

WELL SAID !! JUST LIKE THE "GANGES" THERE IS NO SUCH WORD AS "GANGES" IN VEDIC SHASTRA BUT SP USES IT - IT REFERS TO GANGA !!---WHETER U LIKE IT OR NOT ISKCON IS "HINDU" !!

[Guest guest]

There is no such thing as Hindu, because it can never be properly defined. For an advaitin, hinduism is monism, for an Iskconite, hinduism is monotheism, for kali-worshippers, hinduism is all about eating meat and giving it to kali, for dvaitins, vishnu is supreme, for gaudiyas, krishna is supreme, for buddhists, nobody is supreme, for jains, nobody is!

 

With so many conflicting and confusing ideas passing for hinduism, it's shocking to see some people using that label. A thing that can't even be defined properly, must be non-existent.

 

Iskcon is actually very similar to Christianity, as someone mentioned. In fact, it's derived from Christianity, which is why its founder worshipped Christ every day.

[Guest guest]

 

There is no such thing as Hindu, because it can never be properly defined. For an advaitin, hinduism is monism, for an Iskconite, hinduism is monotheism, for kali-worshippers, hinduism is all about eating meat and giving it to kali, for dvaitins, vishnu is supreme, for gaudiyas, krishna is supreme, for buddhists, nobody is supreme, for jains, nobody is!

 

Neither Buddhist nor Jain are Hindu! only Vedic sects are classified as part of the Hindu religion.

 

 

With so many conflicting and confusing ideas passing for hinduism, it's shocking to see some people using that label. A thing that can't even be defined properly, must be non-existent.

 

There are also many conflicting and confusing ideas passing for Christianity. Have you studied the differences between Mormonism and Catholicism? What about Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists? Or the Pentecostal Christians vs the Gnostic Christians? There are over 10,000 Christian denominations..

 

 

Iskcon is actually very similar to Christianity, as someone mentioned. In fact, it's derived from Christianity, which is why its founder worshipped Christ every day.

 

ISKCON is derived from the ancient Vedic religion. It is not similar at all to Protestant or Catholic Christianity; which the majority of the 2 billion Christians in the world are a part of. You obviously know very little of orthodox Christian beliefs if you consider ISKCON and orthodox Christianity similar. Orthodox Christianity is centered on trusting in Jesus Christ ALONE for your salvation, and his death on the cross as an atonement for your sins. Reincarnation is considered a satanic lie, as is the pre-existence of the soul. It is believed we are created in our mother's womb and this life is all we have to get right with our Maker. The only way to do that is said to be the One Mediator - Jesus Christ. Anyone else who considers themselves a Spiritual Master (like Prabhupad) is considered a False Christ. In Orthodox Christianity, if one does not accept Christ as their Savior in THIS life, they are said to be eternally damned. Hare Krishnas and all other Hindu sects are considered lost souls.

[Guest guest]

 

Iskcon is actually very similar to Christianity, as someone mentioned. In fact, it's derived from Christianity, which is why its founder worshipped Christ every day.

 

FYI: This poster Tackleberry is actually a Christian, and has been spreading anti-Vedic propaganda around the forum. She even attacked the Bhagavad Gita and Lord Krishna for promoting war. Such a belittler of Krsna has no right to speak about what ISKCON is or isn't. If you do a search for this person's registered username (tackleberry, or tackle-berry) you can see these posts I am speaking of.

[krishnadasa]

If you ask any Hindu Priest he will say he never followed or observed ISKCON in the devotional way at all.

 

It looks like you have made a survey of Indian priests to have an authoritative statement like that, havent u?

 

 

<!-- / message -->

[krishnadasa]

good if she affends krishna, she will become HKs one day, coz takes into shelter even his haters; just see wht happend to Hiranay kashipu, ravana , oh lord he fave them vaikunta

cheers

[Guest guest]

Vaishnavism is not Hindu.

Are the demigods Hindus?

The demigods are Vaishnavas but they are not Hindus.

 

Vaishnavism is practiced on many planets all over the universe, even in Sutalaloka where Bali Maharaja worships the Lord.

 

Is Bali Maharaja a HIndu?

Is Dhruva Maharaja a HIndu?

Is Prahlada Maharaja a HIndU?

 

Was Haridas Thakur a Hindu?

 

Vaishnavism is not Hindu. It is the jaiva-dharma of all living entities.

 

Vaishnavism is sanatan dharma. It is not Hindu.

[Guest guest]

Vaishnavism is not Hindu.

 

YES ITS PART OF HINDUISM--ITS ONE OF THE SECTS OF HINDUISM

 

 

Are the demigods Hindus?

YES THEY FOLLW THE VEDAS--

 

 

The demigods are Vaishnavas but they are not Hindus.

VAISHNAVS ARE JUST ONE SECT OF HINDUISM !

 

 

Vaishnavism is practiced on many planets all over the universe, even in Sutalaloka where Bali Maharaja worships the Lord.

GREAT !! IS IT NOT WONDERFULL TO BE PART OF THE ETERNAL RELIGION !!

HINDUISM IS ALL OVER ON ALL THE PLANETS ITS NOT A RELIGION THATS GOING TO LAST FOR ONLY 10000 YEARS !

 

 

 

Is Bali Maharaja a HIndu?

Is Dhruva Maharaja a HIndu?

Is Prahlada Maharaja a HIndU?

YES TO ALL ABOVE !

 

Was Haridas Thakur a Hindu?

YES WITHOUT A DOUBT !!

 

 

Vaishnavism is not Hindu. It is the jaiva-dharma of all living entities.

 

Vaishnavism is sanatan dharma. It is not Hindu.

VAISHVNAVISM IS A PART OF HINDUISM !! THAT IS AS IT IS !!

 

HINDUISM IS A SYNONYM FOR SANATAN DHARMA !!!!

 

JUST AS GANGES IS A SYNONYM FOR GANGA---- THERE IS NO SANSKRIT WORD AS "GANGES" & YET SP USES IT FREEELY !!!

 

YOURS

 

JASWANT

[Guest guest]

 

Vaishnavism is not Hindu.

 

Of the Hundreds of Millions of Vaishnavas in the world, most identify as Hindu. You do know Hare Krishnas are only a small percentage of the greater Vaishnava sampradays?

 

Ask most Vaishnavas in India if they are Hindu, they will most certainly tell you yes. We are not Sikh, Jain, Muslim or Christian, the Vaishnava sects are Hindu.

[Guest guest]

In the Vedic scriptures there is no such thing as "Hindu".

The term Hindu is a foreign term that has been coined by Arabs and Muslims.

 

True followers of Vedic shastra do not consider themselves as Hindu.

 

There is no such thing as a Hindu in the Vedic shastra.

[Guest guest]

Hinduism Today/October 1998

There is a misconception," wrote His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in 1977 in Science of Self Realization, "that the Krishna consciousness movement represents the Hindu religion. Sometimes Indians both inside and outside of India think that we are preaching the Hindu religion, but actually we are not." In chapter three of the book [available from Bhaktivedanta Archives, P.O. Box 255, Sandy Ridge, North Carolina 27046 USA], this startling point is made several times: "The Krishna consciousness movement has nothing to do with the Hindu religion or any system of religion.... One should clearly understand that the Krishna consciousness movement is not preaching the so-called Hindu religion."

 

Followers of Srila Prabhupada have assembled all of his letters, books, lectures, interviews and conversations on the Bhaktivedanta Vedabase [also available from Bhaktivedanta Archives]. This CD-Rom database yielded 183 references to Hinduism, which were compiled and analyzed to understand Srila Prabhupada's point of view.

 

Often Srila Prabhupada would simply deny the existence of a religion called "Hinduism." He attributed the improper designation to "foreign invaders." At other times he acknowledged the existence of the faith, but considered it a hopelessly degraded form of the original Sanatana Dharma of the Vedas. In his April, 1967, New York lectures he remarked, "Although posing as great scholars, ascetics, householders and swamis, the so-called followers of the Hindu religion are all useless, dried-up branches of the Vedic religion." ISKCON, he believed, was the only true exponent of the Vedic faith today. In an interview given for Bhavan's Journal on June 28, 1976, he said, "India, they have given up the real religious system, Sanatana Dharma. Fictitiously, they have accepted a hodgepodge thing which is called Hinduism. Therefore there is trouble."

 

The Guru frequently explained his position, and acted upon his beliefs in establishing his dynamic society. At a 1974 Mumbai lecture, he declared, "We are not preaching Hindu religion. While registering the association, I purposely kept this name, 'Krishna Consciousness,' neither Hindu religion nor Christian nor Buddhist religion."

 

Srila Prabhupada was aware that the Indian community had a mistaken impression of his Hinduness. In a 1970 letter to a temple administrator in Los Angeles, he wrote, "The Hindu community in the West has got some good feeling for me because superficially they are seeing that I am spreading Hindu religion, but factually this Krishna Consciousness movement is neither Hindu religion nor any other religion." That remains the case today, for Srila Prabhupada left no successor with the authority to change his spiritual edicts.

 

So why does the general Hindu community mistakenly believe that ISKCON is a Hindu organization, when it never describes itself as such? Well, it sometimes does. During the recent ISKCON temple openings in New Delhi and Bangalore, where newspaper reports frequently identified the grand temples as Hindu, the ISKCON press releases, such as that of April 15, 1998, never used the H word. Yet, when Indian devotees serving at each of those temples were asked in late July by journalists for this article, they said it is a Hindu temple. The discrepancy between public perception and internal policy is further confused by the group's official exceptions to the non-Hindu position. Faced with difficulties, ISKCON leaders have appealed to the Hindu community to back them up, as in a dispute over the Bhaktivedanta Manor in the UK or when being hassled by Christians in Russia and Poland. In appeals to judges and governments, the word Hindu is openly used. In other legal cases, including one to the US Supreme Court, ISKCON has attempted to counteract the "cult" label by claiming to be a traditional Hindu lineage, and asked other Hindus to affirm this in the courts. Other organizations who parted company with Hinduism, such as Transcendental Meditation and Brahma Kumaris, do not compromise their position under any circumstances.

 

What also sets ISKCON apart is its open repudiation and criticism of Hinduism, especially among members. There are reports of Hindus who joined ISKCON only to be taught to reject their family's religion. "Previously we were Hindus. Now we are Hare Krishnas," some said. At the same time, the organization often appeals to the Hindu community and businessmen for financial support of its social programs and political help to protect ISKCON from detractors.

 

Considering ISKCON's appearances--member's dress, names, bhajana, festivals, worship, scripture, pilgrimage, temple building, and so forth--it's little wonder that so many have assumed they are Hindus. To find out they are not will certainly surprise many--Hindus and non-Hindus alike. It may even surprise a few Hare Krishnas themselves.