• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hindus what is your opinion on Srila Prabhupada ?

Metempsychosis

Reincarnation of 'Anti-religion'
when I meet an advaitin that is ''equaly disposed to everyone '' then I will be very happy ....

You might not..when you are consistently treated as a scum bag:
On Sri Ramakrishna:
Prabhupada: No, he was a big worshiper of Kali. And he was meat-eater also, Ma Kali's prasada, that unless one eats that prasadam he cannot become a devotee. So this was his position, that he worshiped Kali, and later on by worshiping Kali... His picture is there, mother Kali's embracing. And he also preached yata mata tata pat: "Whatever path you take, accept, that is all right." Is it not? So do you think it is all right? He worshiped Kali and he said yata mata tata pat. You agree to this? Now, Ramakrishna says yata mata tata pat. And Krsna says... He became Ramakrishna, identifying himself with Krsna. And Krsna said mam ekam, and now he's becoming Krsna, he says yata mata tata pat. Just see. When he's actual Krsna, he says mam ekam, and when he became imitation Krsna, he says yata mata tata pat. Krsna has changed his views. (laughter) Just see, this foolishness is going on.

Dr. Sukla: Well, it's documented that he was kind of deranged, of a deranged mind. (laughter)

Prabhupada: Yes, that is the proof.

Prabhupada: I'm talking of this Ramakrishna particularly. There is no sastra siddha. Whimsical, sentiment, that's all. So far his yata mata tata pat is concerned, at last he proposed, "Now I shall worship according to the Muhammadan process. So I have to eat cow's flesh." So he was living in that temple... What is that temple in Calcutta? Daksinesvari. So the temple was owned by one big zamindar. So because it is temple, he cannot take... Of course, in that temple Kali was there. So they are taking fish and flesh. That was not objectionable. But he, when he wanted to take cow's flesh, so he wanted permission from proprietor, "Sir, I shall now practice according to Muhammadan system. So I take cow's flesh. So I want your permission." So he said, "Sir, I've given you so much licenses, but if you ask this, then I'll ask you to go out. I cannot give you this permission." Then he stopped Muhammadan way of worship. This is whimsical.
Righteous -- Roggish

On Ramana Maharishi:

Prabhupada: Ramana Maharshi, yes, I am speaking of Ramana Maharshi. He never preached about Krsna's superexcellent position, never preached. This is going on. Everyone is taking advantage of Bhagavad-gita and he's preaching in his own way, foolish way. "Own way" means foolish way. This is going on. You cannot... Suppose you have got your philosophy, but you cannot take my book and preach your philosophy. If you have got philosophy, you write your philosophy. Why do you take advantage of my book and misinterpret? This is cheating. Because my book is very popular, you take advantage of my book and preach your own nonsense philosophy. This is going on. If you want to smoke ganja, you smoke in your own hand. Why you capture my hand and smoke? What is this? So the ganja-smelling will be in my hand, not in your hand. This is going on. Why do they take advantage of Bhagavad-gita and preach their nonsense philosophy? That is our protest. You preach your nonsense philosophy. We have no objection. But don't touch Bhagavad-gita.

You Cannot Preach Your Philosophy

On Yogananda paramahansa:
Prabhupada said, "Who is that Yogananda? He has written a book, Autobiography of a Yogi. He is writing about himself--he is not writing about Krishna. Guru does not present himself; he presents Krishna." That was Srila Prabhupada's greatness.

On vivekananda:
Meditation 126: Refuting Vivekananda's view that God is fictitious | HH Romapada Swami

On Aurobindo:

Prabhupada: No, no. That... One French girl entrapped him. That woman spoiled him. He was actually practicing yoga very nice. After his release from political entanglement, actually he became a yogi, but this Frenchwoman, who became later on "Mother," she spoiled her ca..., his career. He became a bhogi then. (laughter) Instead of yogi... Otherwise, he was becoming yogi. You'll find from his photo. In the beginning, he was very lean and thin, and later on, when he died, he was very fatty. Means bhogi. [break] ...yogi bhogi, rogi. There are three.
Surrender Now

"Spiritual ****" and Company: A Corrupting Influence
The article presents how ISKCON guru Radhanath Swami has been corrupted by mayavadi influence:
http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/08-12/editorials8971.htm
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 ....
Apologies,I updated my previous posts.'Eva; is certainly not the same as at-last.
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 '' :)
You do not because you do not subscribe to his views in these issues.But I have to bring out the preposterous propaganda that some Guru's have been doing to show off how good they are.When Prabhupada bring out nice juicy and imaginary stories about other gurus to propagate his sect and to malign others,I see it as a business tactic,when though he might not mean what he writes.This is an my honest,totally forgiving opinion in light of his writings.I am not saying advaita is noblest of all paths.In fact,I would not be off-base if i say the advaitic theology is suited for its own goals.Nevertheless,I do not see the preaching method used by Prabhupada as a great way to win hearts .
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ratikala

Istha gosthi
namaskaram :namaste

You might not..when you are consistently treated as a scum bag:


have I ever treated you as a scum bag ??? .....with all due respects , ...then it is not constantly :namaste



Apologies,I updated my previous posts.'Eva; is certainly not the same as at-last.
I gave you the transliteration which by previous addmition is what I prefer to read , which might suggest that I prefer to think for my self rather than accept eva as at last .

then you tell me I am biased ? this makes no sence as I did not support at last I supported;... in reality , .. certainly ... which gives preference to neither sectarian veiw .

You do not because you do not subscribe to his views in these issues.you are jumpling to conclusions because you wish to find an argument where there is none ....
I am taking neither side it is called impartiality



But I have to bring out the preposterous propaganda that some Guru's have been doing to show off how good they are.When Prabhupada bring out nice juicy and imaginary stories about other gurus to propagate his sect and to malign others,I see it as a business tactic,when though he might not mean what he writes.This is an my honest,totally forgiving opinion in light of his writings.I am not saying advaita is noblest of all paths.In fact,I would not be off-base if i say the advaitic theology is suited for its own goals.Nevertheless,I do not see the preaching method used by Prabhupada as a great way to win hearts .
I do not care for proving the superiority of any tradition ...I have allready told you this ...

if you live in the world of business tactics then you will not see any more than that but that does not mean that there was not a higher motivation

you criticise others for maligning , yet you malign ???
 

Metempsychosis

Reincarnation of 'Anti-religion'
namaskaram :namaste




have I ever treated you as a scum bag ??? .....with all due respects , ...then it is not constantly :namaste
No,you told you are yet meet a advaitin who views everyone equally.This is wrong.The reason is that you passively agree on the criticism of advaita maha-siddhas as demons and take it as form of higher intentions.

I gave you the transliteration which by previous addmition is what I prefer to read , which might suggest that I prefer to think for my self rather than accept eva as at last .then you tell me I am biased ? this makes no sence as I did not support at last I supported;... in reality , .. certainly ... which gives preference to neither sectarian veiw .
Srila Prabhupada is saying that Jnanis at last get the liberation while Bhakta's also get them.Interestingly,the transliteration for Yuk-atma is 'united with the soul' but Srila Prabhupada translates it 'devotional practice' which is highly Gaudhiya Vaishnavic in approach.It is important to realize that devotional practice is one such method.It is for this reason I am calling this translation it as not unadulterated.

I do not care for proving the superiority of any tradition ...I have allready told you this.if you live in the world of business tactics then you will not see any more than that but that does not mean that there was not a higher motivation
I do not see any higher motivations for saying Sri Ramakrishna had deranged mind.This is bogus speculation accepted by Sri Prabhupada.
you criticise others for maligning , yet you malign ???c
I am not maligning Prabhupada,I am just saying he used business tactics.If you disagree,please provide some evidence that Sri Aurobindo had sexual relations with Mirra Alfassa or that Sri Aurobindo is a bhogi?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ratikala

Istha gosthi
namaskaram MV ji :namaste

मैत्रावरुणिः;3560637 said:
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?

my appologies ....
I continue ....

krsna is sri bhagavan ,
krsna is also a name , ...the name of one of the incarnations of visnu , it means one who is all atractive , yet it also as you quoted has the conotation if black , or dark ,
so you see the name expresses a quality , even in the gita krsna is called by many names .....

but also in the gita krsna says ... I instructed this imperishable science to vivisvan , vivisvan instructed manu , manu instructed iksvaku .......arjuna canot understand this as sri krsna stands there before him , yet he speaks of instructing the first king of the iksvaku dynasty ......krsna explains that he remembers all his births ,'' where as you arjuna do not '', .....so here krsna speaks of his many births or apperances , thus he is and has been many things , but as he is eternal he is symultaniously all these apperances .
therefore both visnu and krsna are synonomous ,

krsna also is known as govinda and thus is said ..'''govindam adi purusham ''


I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is adept in playing on His flute, with blooming eyes like lotus petals, His head decked with peacock feathers, the figure of beauty tinged with the hue of blue clouds, His unique loveliness charming millions of cupids.
I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, whose transcendental form is full of bliss, truth, substantiality and is thus full of the most dazzling splendor. Each of the limbs of that transcendental figure possesses in Himself, the full-fledged functions of all the organs, and eternally sees, maintains and manifests the infinite universes, both spiritual and mundane.


the first , primeval , primordial , ....everything is a manifestation of him , this is the gaudia veiw

it is not a stick and I am not beating you with it , I am simply presenting the veiw you asked for so all gods are a manifestation of adi purusham , so ...me personaly I am not here to argue so if a siva says ''mahadev'' this also is a manifestation I am happy I have no arguement ....I dont mind in the least as the manifestations are symultaniously one as brahma visnu and siva are one , as they are a part of the creation maintaiance and dissolution of this little universe .....of which there are many .....''infinate '' ...



I have no argument at all except with rudness


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.
it is disasterous , it is our downfall , our stupidity and our blindness , ... and who is charging ?.. this is even more foolish


sri ji is beautifull to me but that is me , shree gods are beautifull to you I respect this and I am glad I have no quarel .....

too much quareling here , too little bhajana
 

ShivaFan

Satyameva Jayate
Premium Member
Very true MV. Actually the tired wake is regarding the ones you may think of. I am getting old now. One day I want to go to Kashi, and not come back. Om Namah Sivaya
 

NobodyYouKnow

Misanthropist
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 ?



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

To be honest, I never once asked them, but I should have.

I also wondered about this 'demigod' thing...Shiva is just 'God' to me...there is no 'demigod'...but the attitude of the devotees...while they were not against Shiva, it was clear they didn't see Him as a God neither..

Nor should they. They are Vaishnavas after all....I was the Shaiva....I was the 'different one'.

If I was happy being a Krishna devotee and not being a Shaiva, I would have stayed.

It's only logical...'this religion sucks because they are dissing a God they don't believe in, but I do'...

Simple solution - ignore it and change religions - which I eventually did.

Picked up a copy of Asana, Pranayama, Mudra, Bandha....moved into Satyananda Ashram, studied Virashaivism on the side...I never looked back.

Srila Prabhupada was a 'stepping stone' for me also. I think he introduced a lot of people to Hinduism that have since moved on in either the faith, or with their lives. We can give him due credit for that.

Om Namah Shivay
 
Last edited:

ratikala

Istha gosthi
namaskaram

No,you told you are yet meet a advaitin who views everyone equally.This is wrong.The reason is that you passively agree on the criticism of advaita maha-siddhas as demons and take it as form of higher intentions.

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

please donot miss quote me to satisfy your malice
and where have I agreed
on the criticism of advaita maha-siddhas as demons and take it as form of higher intentions.
I am not agreeing with any thing someone else may have said just because I said I like srila prabhupadas translation of the gita
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
namaskaram :namaste

मैत्रावरुणिः;3561270 said:
I do not think translating Krishna as black is a connotation.

ok what next I can give you a definition of krsna as all atractive , ....you then refute it ....this goes on for pages ,


this is what my grandfather called trying to carry water in a sive :)

I give up , ......
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
namaskaram :namaste



ok what next I can give you a definition of krsna as all atractive , ....you then refute it ....this goes on for pages ,


this is what my grandfather called trying to carry water in a sive :)

I give up , ......

??

I didn't refute anything, Ratikala. The noun, "krishna", literally means "black". This is not a connotation. There is nothing negative (connotative) about "black". "Black" is the literal translation of "krishna". Even in Vedic Sanskrit, "krishna" is used as an adjective and as a noun for the color "black". There is no connotation.

Adhyatmically, "Krishna" can be seen as "all-attractive". I have no dispute with this. If "krishna" means "all-attractive", then it simply means that "black" is "all-attractive". :)
 

NobodyYouKnow

Misanthropist
मैत्रावरुणिः;3561337 said:
??

I didn't refute anything, Ratikala. The noun, "krishna", literally means "black". This is not a connotation. There is nothing negative (connotative) about "black". "Black" is the literal translation of "krishna". Even in Vedic Sanskrit, "krishna" is used as an adjective and as a noun for the color "black". There is no connotation.

Adhyatmically, "Krishna" can be seen as "all-attractive". I have no dispute with this. If "krishna" means "all-attractive", then it simply means that "black" is "all-attractive". :)
I agree. There is nothing negative about 'black' is there Kali Ma? Bhairava?

It is the notion of being 'sky-clad' (Digambaram) and wearing the universe as a garland of planetary pearls...black is 'all attractive'.

Black is the colour/attribute that absorbs all unto itself, whilst still remaining black...it is the colour we see when we close our eyes for meditation and wonder what is behind the veil of obscurity.

Black also hides all impurity, so it is treated with suspicion.

Going back and trying to remember my old Sanskrit lessons is going to prove a harder task.

Now, I thought/taught that KrishnA (with emphasis on the A) meant 'black' and Krishna meant 'attractive/pretty' or it could be the other way around - I need to brush up on my Sanskrit again....it's been a while.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Somewhat off topic, but ....

I wish we had more information or posters from the Eastern Bloc, mainly Poland and Russia. There seems to be tremendous growth in Hinduism there, and ISKCON leads the way. There are tons of videos of dancing, concerts, etc., yet few reports. I think it may be a repeat of the history in the US and Britain, the 60s.

Of course information is still limited, by language, and by press.

ie .. [youtube]T7DOny-5TFE[/youtube]
Dozens of Hindu Converts at the New Temple,Omsk-Russia - YouTube

Anybody know more?
 
मैत्रावरुणिः;3561337 said:
??

I didn't refute anything, Ratikala. The noun, "krishna", literally means "black". This is not a connotation. There is nothing negative (connotative) about "black". "Black" is the literal translation of "krishna". Even in Vedic Sanskrit, "krishna" is used as an adjective and as a noun for the color "black". There is no connotation.

Adhyatmically, "Krishna" can be seen as "all-attractive". I have no dispute with this. If "krishna" means "all-attractive", then it simply means that "black" is "all-attractive". :)
I sympathize with your point, but here I have to agree with the intuitive knowledge of Ratikala ji (after all she is the Vaishnava here).

"Krishna" means literally black, but it is in reality a term for attractiveness (think of black hole in cosmos) of Sri K. I said Sri K, bt I meant : Sri kAnnA, that is how He was called by everyone; "Krishna"on the other hand, is a Sanskritised version.

To support my point, He is called kannan in Tamilnadu, and Tamils are no-nonsense people as far as I know.

I see Krishna as creamy white. I have my reasons but can't share it right now.
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
I sympathize with your point, but here I have to agree with the intuitive knowledge of Ratikala ji (after all she is the Vaishnava here).

"Krishna" means literally black, but it is in reality a term for attractiveness (think of black hole in cosmos) of Sri K. I said Sri K, bt I meant : Sri kAnnA, that is how He was called by everyone; "Krishna"on the other hand, is a Sanskritised version.

To support my point, He is called kannan in Tamilnadu, and Tamils are no-nonsense people as far as I know.

I see Krishna as creamy white. I have my reasons but can't share it right now.

I have no dispute with the above. The noun and adjective, "krishna", is not connotatively "black", in its definition. Ratikala said that I used "black" as a connotation. I said that I did not use it as a connotation, nor did I quote it as a connotation. :)
 

ratikala

Istha gosthi
namaskaram MV ji :namaste

मैत्रावरुणिः;3561467 said:
I have no dispute with the above. The noun and adjective, "krishna", is not connotatively "black", in its definition. Ratikala said that I used "black" as a connotation. I said that I did not use it as a connotation, nor did I quote it as a connotation. :)


I said that the name has more than the connotation of black .....


connotation;
noun

an idea or feeling which a word invokes for a person in addition to its literal or primary meaning:
(oxford english dictionary )

all I meant was that as far as we are taught and a vaisnava understands ....Krsna means all atractive , .... that is all his atributes are attractive ...there fore it is the primary meaning ......connotation that sence feeling or quality comomly evoked , as in black , dark , yet it does not describe all his qualities .....

I give up ...what is the point in your asking me about krsna when you dont want to hear , why do I wase my time ???

I wouldnt presume to know more about your gods than you , I would rather let you speak , and I would enjoy to listen .

no instead you take issue with the word connotation ......or my use of it


I re quote Lord buddha , ... .''look not at the word but the meaning'' ......

and the name krsna has more meaning than black !
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
Rati,

If you re-read my posts, I clearly state that I have no dispute with the definition of "all-attractive" for Krishna-ji.

I was talking to Jaskaran, regarding the literal definition of the word in question. There is nothing wrong with Krishna literally meaning "black". And, there is nothing wrong with Krishna adhyAtmically meaning "all-attractive".

EDIT: In other words, I agree with your post and I hold no dispute with "all-attractive", because, let's face it: Shri Krishna-ji is All-Attractive. Let us simply state that it was all a misunderstanding. :)
 
Last edited:

ratikala

Istha gosthi
namaskaram KV ji :namaste

I sympathize with your point, but here I have to agree with the intuitive knowledge of Ratikala ji (after all she is the Vaishnava here).

I just no longer undrerstand what is going on here some one asks what gaudia vaisnavas beleive .....from my heart I give my understanding .... I dont expext total acceptance only polite or at least respectfull conversation .... is that too much to ask for ?


"Krishna" means literally black, but it is in reality a term for attractiveness (think of black hole in cosmos) of Sri K. I said Sri K, bt I meant : Sri kAnnA, that is how He was called by everyone; "Krishna"on the other hand, is a Sanskritised version.
it is more than this , .... all atractive means having all good qualities , ....to understand these qualities sat -cit -ananda ... is to know krsna ....

as he is the giver of pleasure as he is truthfullness and rightious , ..he is pure conciousness full of knowledge , and bliss ....
thus he is more than black , black is but one quality .



To support my point, He is called kannan in Tamilnadu, and Tamils are no-nonsense people as far as I know.
please explain kannan :)
 
Top