Hindus what is your opinion on Srila Prabhupada ?

[Metempsychosis]

Namaste.

Being a member of ISKCON for a few years during my late teens, I always saw Srila Prabhupada as being more of a 'strict grandpa, keeping us all in line with a big stick' rather than any kind of 'loving Guru'. I just couldn't worship him in the same way the other devotees did...I just didn't 'feel it'.

I also agree with most of what you have said, but in the attempt to try to overcome this emotion, I sat down and read all of the Srila Prabhupada Lilamrita by Satsvarupa Dasa Goswami...it just opened my eyes up to the whole thing, but made little difference to what I felt.

In fact, I was still a Shaiva in hiding.....

What Srila Prabhupada represents to his devotees...yes, I can honestly understand how and why...but you are right about the Osho comparison in the end. He let the 'monster he created' swallow him up.

Om Namah Shivaya

True.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

It was such a weird time in my life back then...

Back in those days (the late 70's/early '80's), there weren't any Shaiva/Hindu temples here in Sydney and all that was on offer - ISKCON, the Theosophical Society and a small group of SRF members meeting at a house once a week - I was a member of all three, naturally.

The ISKCON temple was right next door to my first job and I was allowed to board there - I initially went because of free lunchtime Prasadam and one totally amazing picture of Lord Shiva they had hanging up in their main temple room.

I also actually and surprisingly liked the energy and adrenaline of Sankirtan and dressing up to do plays and stuff though..

However, it was so difficult passing the picture of my 'Demigod' without feeling like I was having a 'secret affair' or something....trying to hide it all from Krishna. I actually enjoyed this feeling a lot....It was totally exhilarating...but I did manage to cultivate love for Sri Krishna enough to worship Him...without that picture distracting me.

My favourite times were spent in the late evenings, just before the temple room closed, after the Murthis had been put to sleep, just sitting in the temple room all alone, meditating on the image/picture of Shiva for 10-15 mins.

I 'sort of' felt a bit guilty and out of place there, but it didn't seem to matter...

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram :namaste

I initially went because of free lunchtime Prasadam and one totally amazing picture of Lord Shiva they had hanging up in their main temple room.

what amazes me is that people think that iskcon has something against siva , yet here there is a large picture in the temple ???

However, it was so difficult passing the picture of my 'Demigod' without feeling like I was having a 'secret affair' or something....trying to hide it all from Krishna. I actually enjoyed this feeling a lot....It was totally exhilarating...but I did manage to cultivate love for Sri Krishna enough to worship Him...without that picture distracting me.

and this 'demigod' noncence surely if siva is a demi god , then brahma is a demigod , which makes visnu a demigod ??? ...

how did devotees there regard siva ? ....what reason did they give for displaying the picture ?

My favourite times were spent in the late evenings, just before the temple room closed, after the Murthis had been put to sleep, just sitting in the temple room all alone, meditating on the image/picture of Shiva for 10-15 mins.

I 'sort of' felt a bit guilty and out of place there, but it didn't seem to matter...

I am not wanting to criticise any tradition in any way but I am curious about the attitudes addopted and propogated , ....

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram vinayaka ji :namaste

Go directly to the source then.. Bhagavat Gita As it Is .... which BTW is a lie, as it IS in Sanskrit not English.

I missed this post .......I am assuming you have seen a copy ? .....


it is true , the ' bhagavad gita ' is a sanskrit text .....

but it is also true that the ' bhagavad gita as it is ' ..is also a sanskrit text , ....well at least mine is ???

I have about 8 different translations from different traditions , I used to have a lot more but sadly quite a lot of my books got lost when we moved which I was very sad about , ....but I still have the Bhagavad gita as it is ...and use it a lot because it is the best and most faithfull text , ..giving first the sanskrit , ....followed by the transliteration , ...followed then by the translation , ....then finaly a paragraph explaining the purport , how much more thorough could prabhpada have been ?

although I dont read the purports very often I do use the transliteration all the time .
so many other gita's dont give this .even after many years of gita classes and recitation , I still find the transliterations invaluable in understanding the sanskrit .


Hmmm .... the more I hear srila prabhupada criticised here on this site , the more I have to refer to what he was saying , because I want to make my own mind up about this animosity waged against him , .....all this has done is to make me understand him better and respect him more , ...

why this subject is so controvercial I dont quite understand ?
people should prehaps read and consider a little more before following the pack in their propencity to criticise .

 

[Vinayaka]

I like and admire 98% of what Prabhupada did. The copy I had seen was Sanskrit to English, yes, and I (perhaps mistakenly) thought the title was referring to the English part. But now that I think about it, perhaps it wasn't. If not, then just the original Sanskrit by itself would suffice, no?

(I actually heard this said at a talk given by a respected Advaita Swami, and am just regurgitating that, but it's all water under the bridge.)

 

[Poeticus]

Hindus what is your opinion on Srila Prabhupada?

He did more for spreading Krishna Bhakti than what I could have done in three lifetimes.

 

[ratikala]

I like and admire 98% of what Prabhupada did. The copy I had seen was Sanskrit to English, yes, and I (perhaps mistakenly) thought the title was referring to the English part. But now that I think about it, perhaps it wasn't. If not, then just the original Sanskrit by itself would suffice, no?

(I actually heard this said at a talk given by a respected Advaita Swami, and am just regurgitating that, but it's all water under the bridge.)

I have allways taken ...''as it is '' , ....to refer to the fact that it is presented in its complete form ...in the original ' SANSKRIT' , followed by transliteration (for the benifit of serious students) , ....rather than the poetic licence used by many scholars who omit the sanskrit and give their own translation . these versions canot be refered to as true but only as oppinion . ...therefore ..''as it is '' , is as it is , the un adulterated Bhagavad Gita :namaste

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram MV ji :namaste

He did more for spreading Krishna Bhakti than what I could have done in three lifetimes.

you have plenty of life ahead of you who knows what you will do

it is just that srila prabhupada had the attitude of ''Dasa Dasanu Dasah'' ...he simply wished to fulfill the wishes of his guru :namaste

vinayaka ji , ....there that is surrender in true vaisnava style .

 

[Poeticus]

rather than the poetic licence used by many scholars who omit the sanskrit and give their own translation . these versions canot be refered to as true but only as oppinion . ...therefore ..''as it is '' , is as it is , the un adulterated Bhagavad Gita :namaste

But, we should be honest as possible and neutral and not involve personal bias:

Prabhupada's translations are one-sided, many times. And, it makes sense because he was using a Gaudiya lens/perspective when he approached the Bhagavad Gita. Furthermore, before he was alive, there was no "demigod this", "demigod that", "Shiva is Vishnu's devotee", "Vishnu/Krishna is greater", etc.

 

[ratikala]

I like and admire 98% of what Prabhupada did. The copy I had seen was Sanskrit to English, yes, and I (perhaps mistakenly) thought the title was referring to the English part. But now that I think about it, perhaps it wasn't. If not, then just the original Sanskrit by itself would suffice, no?

(I actually heard this said at a talk given by a respected Advaita Swami, and am just regurgitating that, but it's all water under the bridge.)

Oh yes , .... I forgot to say ....we also had a shelf in the temple of the bhagavad gita gita translated into gujarati , into hindi , into all sorts of languages italian , russian ....as not everyone fully understands sanskrit ,.... so very nice ... Bhagavad Gita as it is ... made available to everyone ....

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

But, we should be honest as possible and neutral and not involve personal bias:

Prabhupada's translations are one-sided, many times. And, it makes sense because he was using a Gaudiya lens/perspective when he approached the Bhagavad Gita. Furthermore, before he was alive, there was no "demigod this", "demigod that", "Shiva is Vishnu's devotee", "Vishnu/Krishna is greater", etc.

Lol, I just read that backwards as "Viṣṇu is Śiva's devotee"...

śivāya viṣṇurūpāya śivarūpāya viṣṇave।
śivasya hṛdayaṁ viṣṇurviṣṇośca hṛdayaṁ śivaḥ॥
yathā śivamayo viṣṇurevaṁ viṣṇumayaḥ śivaḥ।
yathāntaraṁ na paśyāmi tathā me svastir āyuṣaḥ॥

 

[Poeticus]

śivasya hṛdayaṁ viṣṇurviṣṇośca hṛdayaṁ śivaḥ॥

Om. so self-explanatory Om.

 

[Metempsychosis]

I have allways taken ...''as it is '' , ....to refer to the fact that it is presented in its complete form ...in the original ' SANSKRIT' , followed by transliteration (for the benifit of serious students) , ....rather than the poetic licence used by many scholars who omit the sanskrit and give their own translation . these versions canot be refered to as true but only as oppinion . ...therefore ..''as it is '' , is as it is , the un adulterated Bhagavad Gita :namaste

Nah,I would not go so far to say it is an unadulterated one.

I agree the transliteration is good(but not perfect),translation is mostly Gaudiya eulogy and purport explains their support from scriptures and differences from Advaita.Here,is one example:

Transliteration Error 1:
Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 5: Karma-yoga--Action in Krsna Consciousness, Text 4.
Asitis translation-Yuktatma is not devotional service,rather it means one with the soul

Chapter 7. Knowledge of the Absolute
TEXT 18

udarah sarva evaite
jnani tv atmaiva me matam
asthitah sa hi yuktatma
mam evanuttamam gatim

SYNONYMS

udarah--magnanimous; sarve--all; eva--certainly; ete--these; jnani--one who is in knowledge; tu--but; atma eva--just like Myself; me--My;matam--opinion; asthitah--situated; sah--he; hi--certainly; yukta-atma--engaged in devotional service; mam--unto Me; eva--certainly;anuttamam--the highest goal; gatim--destination.

Translation Error 2:
Arjuna asked: Those ever steadfast devotees who worship the personal aspect of God with form(s), and others who worship the impersonal aspect, or the formless Absolute; which of these has the best knowledge of yoga? (12.01)
Lord Krishna said: Those ever steadfast devotees who worship with supreme faith by fixing their mind on a personal form of God, I consider them to be the best yogis. (See also 6.47) (12.02)
But those who worship the unchangeable, the inexplicable, the invisible, the omnipresent, the inconceivable, the unchanging, the immovable, and the formless impersonal aspect of God; restraining all the senses, even-minded under all circumstances, engaged in the welfare of all creatures, also attain God. (12.03-04)

But in Prabhupada's translation,he changes also with 'at last'.May be to show bhakti is superior.In his own word-to word transliteration there is no equivalent of atlast-
See here:
Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 12: Devotional Service, Text 3-4.
Please comparison here:
http://www.gita-society.com/hare_krishna.htm

I mean these are not big mistakes and it is quite understandable how it works from Gaudiya perspective.

 

[ratikala]

But, we should be honest as possible and neutral and not involve personal bias:

Prabhupada's translations are one-sided, many times. And, it makes sense because he was using a Gaudiya lens/perspective when he approached the Bhagavad Gita. Furthermore, before he was alive, there was no "demigod this", "demigod that", "Shiva is Vishnu's devotee", "Vishnu/Krishna is greater", etc.

yes this is the one bit that perplexes me , yet I think that we are not understanding what he meant by saying demi god , so I am not so staunch on this aspect and am keeping an open mind on the meaning of demi god , ...devas ... many gods ...

so for me there is no bias , I see it as you say ...as seen through a Gaudia vaisnava lens , .. it is only natural .....but still there is no bias

if we follow the siva is a demi god line of reasoning , then also brahma is a demigod , visnu is a demigod ....demi god is then an expansion of parameshwara .....

as I came to this with the lens of a vajrayana buddhist , ...where we have adi buddha the primordial buddha from which all buddhi stems , and it is adi buddha who is the ultimate realisation of all of the buddhas ...so I am not fussed by names ...it is the understanding that is important .

I do not know what came before the translations we read , was srila prabhupada taught , ..lesser gods ? .... demi is meaning half , therefore incomplete ...he would deffinately have been taught one supreme 'param' ' isvara' as the all knowing , omniscient , omnipotent , omnipresent, ... god . ... the question is , are what he is calling demi gods , omniscient , omnipotent , and omnipresent ? if not then they are incomplete , they are not possesing the fullness of qualities .

but I dont want to disrespect anothers god or apear to say that my tradition is superior I am asking only a question so that we might equalise that bias with understanding

 

[Vinayaka]

A humble suggestion ... search on ISKCON + demigod, and then read the ISKCON literature on it. In other words, go to the source for a greater understanding of any literature just as read the Gita (or any other scripture) for yourself, rather than rely on translations.

 

[Poeticus]

I do not know what came before the translations we read , was srila prabhupada taught , ..lesser gods ? .... demi is meaning half , therefore incomplete ...he would deffinately have been taught one supreme 'param' ' isvara' as the all knowing , omniscient , omnipotent , omnipresent, ... god . ... the question is , are what he is calling demi gods , omniscient , omnipotent , and omnipresent ? if not then they are incomplete , they are not possesing the fullness of qualities .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gaudiyas believe that Krishna is Parameshvara, correct? This would make Vishnu non-Parameshvara, correct? Thus, Vishnu would become a 'demigod', right?

I find the whole idea of "my God is better than yours, I can show you, but I'll have to charge" a little dangerous.

 

[ratikala]

Nah,I would not go so far to say it is an unadulterated one.

I agree the transliteration is good(but not perfect),translation is mostly Gaudiya eulogy and purport explains their support from scriptures and differences from Advaita.Here,is one example:

I mean these are not big mistakes and it is quite understandable how it works from Gaudiya perspective.

when I meet an advaitin that is ''equaly disposed to everyone '' then I will be very happy ....

to me it reads equaly well either way around , but then I am not looking to find differences ..... after all it says eva , certainly ....it is a reality ....

I do not care for proving the superiority of any tradition .... buddha once said words to the effect of '' look not at the words but at the meaning ''

then we can all be happy ....

 

[ratikala]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gaudiyas believe that Krishna is Parameshvara, correct? This would make Vishnu non-Parameshvara, correct? Thus, Vishnu would become a 'demigod', right?

namaskaram

I have to come back to this as I have some work to finish but it is a realy important point ...I want the time to explain properly without feeling under presure of time ..

my appologies

I find the whole idea of "my God is better than yours, I can show you, but I'll have to charge" a little dangerous.

little dangerous ??? a large big bit dangerous !!!

personaly my veiw is that my aspect of god appears for my benifit and your aspect of god , gods appears for your benifit so that 'eva ' certainly we might both prapnuvanti mam eva , ....

 

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

Yes there are some Gaudiyas who consider Krishna the "supreme" (viz Personality).

I don't have a problem with one sect or another having their Lord declared "supreme" within their own circles and within their own literature, or on their own webpage.

But in a parliament of Hindus, a forum for all Hindus, I really do not like it with fixations from members of the "conference", parliament or forum, wasting everyone's time harping over again on fixations that focus on belittling another's Lord, or constant quotes from this or that scripture to "prove" some other is a demigod, or this barking like a dog at others with pointed finger "you are sudra" and other fixations which are more about putting down other Hindus rather than glorifying their own in a public forum. You can praise your own without putting down another, without going into this sort of nonsense. Yes, clarify your position when discussing with your Guru or teacher, etc., even if on a webpage dedicated to such, but not when other Hindus are your guests or attendees. How you treat guests are an important value in Hinduism.

Outside of a teacher who commits abominations such as child molestation, what is the use of attacking some other Guru? Actually, almost always that form of "whipping the dog" has already come and gone, is so boring actually and full of simply wanting to provoke some response for God knows what reason.

We Hindus have some enemies out there, better we help each other than weaken each other. I've tried to be nice and open with some of the worse offenders unnamed, but I am getting sort of tired of it too.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Poeticus]

ShivaFan,

Just keep in mind, por favor, of who made the first strike, as it pertains to the divisiveness of "demigod(s)". And, who did not start such division.