-
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 ?
- Thread starter FreeThinker619
- Start date
Jaskaran Singh
Divosūnupriyaḥ
I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist sharing....
[youtube]P-vEfCaWW9I[/youtube]
Kalicharan Tuvij
Ästika
Not of this world!
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram jaskaran ji :namaste
[/QUOTE]
jai jai so beautifull thank you :namaste
[/QUOTE]
jai jai so beautifull thank you :namaste
Jaskaran Singh
Divosūnupriyaḥ
The following śloka from Jayadevagosvāmī's Gītāgovindam is also quite beautiful:
vahaticavalitavilocanajaladharamānanakamalamudāram।
vidhumivavikaṭavidhuntudadantadalanagalitāmṛtadhāram।
sā virahe tava dīnā॥
Translation:
"And bearing the water of her bent [or decorated?] eyes [i.e. tears] flowing from her eloquent lotus face, she releases ambrosial streams which are as great as [how] the moon wanes when eclipsed by the teeth of the moon-breaker (Rāhu). She (Rādhā
is depressed/love-lorn due to separation from you (Śrī Kṛṣṇa)."Edit: I have no idea why there's a space between "dhār" and "am," but I can't change that...
Last edited:
Pranam, hare krishna
I think there are very few sects of sanatana dharma who believe in prabhupada. Even other vaishnawas are against him and his popular organisation iskcon. It is only because of his distortion made in bhagavat gita's translation.
The name itself says much. Bhagavat gita as it is ! If one reads this he thinks that really its a original gita. But the fact is that it is adulterated and misinterpreted. If you study that so called gita with word by word in sanskrit, you will not find any similarity between original verses and prabhupada's translation . I personally read it and studied it .
Be a.vaishnawa not a iskconite
hare krishna
I think there are very few sects of sanatana dharma who believe in prabhupada. Even other vaishnawas are against him and his popular organisation iskcon. It is only because of his distortion made in bhagavat gita's translation.
The name itself says much. Bhagavat gita as it is ! If one reads this he thinks that really its a original gita. But the fact is that it is adulterated and misinterpreted. If you study that so called gita with word by word in sanskrit, you will not find any similarity between original verses and prabhupada's translation . I personally read it and studied it .
Be a.vaishnawa not a iskconite
hare krishna
Amrut
Aum - Advaita
PraNAm-s
I had a little respect for Srila PrabhupAda and thought many things are said by their disciples and not him. But if the said verses that you quoted and the one I am quoting below are actually said by him, I would not be able to respect him, nor would I consider him worthy of taking his objection against advaita.
source
HLK,
I had a glance at his Bhagavad Gita as it is. But I have found that at the end of each chapter, he has written something like, 'Thus ends the purport of Srilaprabhupada on Gita ...."
There is no mention of traditional verse saying, iti srimad bhagavad giIa sU, upanishad sU, brahma-vidyAyAm, yOga SastrE, shrI KrShNa ArjUna savAdE, ...
Aum
Naveen Shah
Member
My two cents:
Not everyone in ISKCON is bad.But try not to follow them literally because once you are into it, you would become a fanatic without even knowing that you have become one. You would even challenge people for debates over the matters like the person should follow Bhagawad Geeta from which publisher (even if it is in condensed form).
ISKCon would make you narrow minded to the level which you would have never thought of. This is my personal experience as I have personally seen people change into narrow minded pricks from good, happy and open minded people.
When I first thought of following it myself, I did some research and found a number of facts which astonished me completely and reduced the amount of respect I had for this organisation.
Pros:
You would become a Krishna Bhakt.You get all good habits like no smoking,no drinking,vegetarianism,celibate.
The after effects are really good. For instance religious people in most of the cases become much better in their behavior.
Cons:
You start to believe "only" in Krishna
You might become fanatic who says I am the only one right.
You would start considering everyone not belonging to the organisation as Mayavadi.
When you consider them Mayavadi, you would become more narrow minded because you start thinking that they are mayavadis who are entangled in Maya and they do not understand your goal. So you close your ears for a counter thought which is really important for human mind to develop.
Last edited:
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
As per my observations, Iskconites use the term, "mayavadi", in a similar fashion like how Christians and Muslims use the term, "infidel".
Little do they know that more than 85% of their theological concepts go against Shruti.
However, it would be only fair to point out that there are Gaudiya Vaishnavites and then there are Iskconized Gaudiyas. The former are a little more Shruti-friendly, while the latter are not. The only real difference is, one is Hindu while the other is not, as per their own self-exclamations.
Naveen Shah
Member
I concur.मैत्रावरुणिः;3574308 said:
Mayavadi's according to ISKCon are similiar to atheists who think they are one with God.It fits their interpretation of Shruti,which is all good.
They are free to have this view.Important point of the matter is that it is not going to have a positive impact on their own minds.Hindu include mayavadi as per the traditional definition and it is only fair to say that ISKCon want to disassociate from mayavadis by giving up their own traditional name.
Last edited:
Amrut
Aum - Advaita
Namaste,
Accusations, etc are a result of impure and intolerant mind. Gita and Upanishads do not accuse anyone, not even athiests, nor does it stress too much on sin, but stresses on bhakti and Jnana.
If one has faith in their devotion and God, then where is the question of loosing one's faith under the influence of a Mayavadi. Only God should influence you. It means your mind is weak.
Aum
Naveen Shah
Member
ISKcon asks mayavadins- how do call yourself god like Jiva being same as Brahman.It is blasphemous to God.Criticism is that how can their be love when there is no variety and if everything is same blob of consciousness.Their concept of Bhakti reduces to ashes when Jiva is equated with Brahman.So,it seems natural for ISKcon to ridicule Mayavada.
Amrut
Aum - Advaita
ISKcon asks mayavadins- how do call yourself god like Jiva being same as Brahman.It is blasphemous to God.Criticism is that how can their be love when there is no variety and if everything is same blob of consciousness.Their concept of Bhakti reduces to ashes when Jiva is equated with Brahman.So,it seems natural for ISKcon to ridicule Mayavada.
Namaste,
To understand a philosophy, one must sit at a feet of Guru, learn it, digest it, and apply in practice. It takes years to understand.
As one progresses in spirituality (atleast advaita way), one feels deep peace and bliss through the day, even while working. As I have told certain things cannot be explained. God is not realized by grammar or logic.
If you read Gita Shankara BhASya, you will notice that advaita is not just 'Brahma Satya Jagan Mithya'. It typically represent 4th ashram. One has to cross first three. Do veda-s and vedanta contradict each other. Which one is right? Both cannot be true. right?
Sectarian beliefs need not be answered. There is a difference between a doubt and accusation. One should not be 'toad of well'.
Aum
Last edited:
Naveen Shah
Member
Agree problems occur when you understand advaita using the lens of Acthinya Bheda Abheda.
What is the support of achintya bhedabheda theory in shruti and puranas ?
Don't put verses from bramha samhita, which is not ancient. It was created by unknown vaishnawa. According to researches, sanskrit used in bramha samhita is not ancient sanskrit. It is the creation done in recent years.
Hare krishna
Don't put verses from bramha samhita, which is not ancient. It was created by unknown vaishnawa. According to researches, sanskrit used in bramha samhita is not ancient sanskrit. It is the creation done in recent years.
Hare krishna
Rohit Adhikarla
Member
Pranams,
I would suggest that anyone trying to understand bhagavad gita should not restrict himself to only one translation. It is impossible to grasp even the tiniest part of its essence in one book.I write my observations on Prabhupada's works and asitis text What I like about this version is the Sanskrit text, the roman transliteration and word-for-word translation of the text.It is very obvious from reading this version of Bhagavad Gita that the author has a deep reverence and devotion to Krishna. This is definetely a religious version of Bhagavad Gita. If you are more of a liberal spiritual type looking for a neutral spritual book, this is not that. Swami Prabhupada was a very religious man, not a liberal or eclectic spiritual teacher. He, as most people know, founded the Hare Krishna movement in the USA and COMPLETELY writes the Gita from the perspective of Krishna the Supreme Being and using the Gita as the science for pure devotion to Krishna. He is very opposed to even the idea of substituting Krishna to mean "Being, Absolute Reality your True Self" or any such words that are used in impersonal teachings. One way or the other, that is a very private matter that each of us needs to explore on our own, I just want to inform readers of how specific Swami Prabhupada is in his teachings so that those out there looking for a more "open minded" teaching might want to know this. However with that said, I do feel that Swami Prabhupada did write a beautiful book that is EXTREMELY THOROUGH and detailed in his beliefs.*
I have studied many Gitas and many holy books for that matter. Like I just said, Prabhupada is thorough and I admire him for it. Word-for-word Sanskrit translations alone are a major reason to study this edition. But it is still only ONE viewpoint among many. Leave aside for a moment the fact that he misleads the reader in the introduction by saying his commentary is bias-free. He also shows very little (to no) respect to other gurus who have produced their own commentaries -- except, of course, other Vaisnavas.*
These people have studied Sanskrit and know (and knew) about which they speak. They just have a different point of view. Yet instead of pointing out disagreement, Prabhupada flat-out dismisses them. Others have pointed out his translations that are bent to fit his bhakti-centric philosophy as well. Just because you disagree doesn't mean other points of view don't have merit.*
My post was simply to point out this fact. There's more than one way to look at something. What Prabhupada does, however, is stifle debate by hiding behind "disciplic succession" (as if his line is the only one) and calling those who came before him from other schools dog-eaters and rascals and blinded by illusion. That's like sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling loudly to drown out debate. But more importantly, to potential readers who don't know any better, it's akin to ideological strangulation. It's dishonest. Any teacher knows that.
What's wrong with Prabhupada's 'as it is'?
1.In the introduction to this Bhagavad Gita, Bhaktivedanta says that the reason he had to do his own translation of the Bhagavad Gita is because no one else got it right and he therefore he calls his translation of the Gita "As It Is" implying that everyone else's translation is "As It Isn't". Everyone else is wrong and he is the only one who is right. Incredible arrogance of the author is noted. This violates the first principle of a true devotee: nirahankar (or without pride) and nirabhimaan (without arrogance).*
2.There is a lot of negative energy flowing from Prabhupada in most of his writings. From any person of differing opinion, the repeated sentences of "those too ignorant to understand," or "less intelligent," are starting to really taint this book. If I had wanted to understand how condescending this Swami was, I could've figured it out some other way besides reading this book. It's a shame, because he is trying to convey the essence of Hinduism and the Krishna consciousness movement,and through his actions, making me wonder if this condescension is not an isolated occurrence.It is easy to compare the word-for-word transliteration actually presented with the commentary to see this. For example, words that clearly do not mean Krishna Consciousness have been translated/interpreted to mean as such. When you read the commentary, it seems to often go off on it's own agenda and not actually reflect the verse itself.If you read the book, it is less about a honest interpretation of the Gita than a rant about Mayavadas.It is also interesting that even though he makes attacks on others views on what the texts are about, this allows you to see the texts from different angles, although it's not the best way to do it.
"Take chapter 2 verse 72 of the original:
*"eSa brAhmIsthitih pArtha nainam prApya vimuhyati sthitvAsyAmantakAlepi brahmanirvAnamrcchati."
*This verse simply says "That is 'Brahman-status', O' prince. After obtaining it, a person is not disoriented; the one who is situated in it even at end-time does attain the 'Nirvana' that is 'Brahman'." *Bhaktivedanta twists and smooths over the technical terms to come up following translation: "That is the way of the spiritual and godly life, after attaining which a man is not bewildered. Being so situated, even at the hour of death, one can enter into the kingdom of God."
3.He repeats ad naseum that bhakti yoga is the only way to God regardless of what chapter of the Gita. To support this, he actually renders commentary that contradicts the sutras he is commenting upon. One would think that if his "Hare Krishna Hare Rama" mantra was so vitally important, Krishna would have mentioned it in the Gita at least a few dozen times? ten times? one time? No, not even once. In short, if he so deeply loved Lord Krishna, he certainly had a strange way of showing it. Prabhupada inserts his seemingly trademarked phrase, "Krishna consciousness," at any given opportunity. The word-for-word translations (not to be confused with the passage translations) offer some respite from this barrage, but they can be a pain to read given the grammatical differences between Sanskrit and English.
If you decide to get this, my advice is to read only the passage translations--and do that, even, with a grain of salt. I'm not sure if unadulterated translations of the Gita exist, but if you're looking for even a semblance of objectivity you wont find it in this book.*
4.Clearly the Gita discusses and develops a whole range of methods of practice in order for the Jiva (individual) to attain realisation of the absolute non-dual Brahman. There are also countless interpretations. However my feeling is that because of the inherent biases present in his rendition, many of the finer points and instructions of the Gita have been lost.Prabhupada was not only adamant that kirtana was the only means of salvation, but he was equally adamant that it was Krishna kirtana specifically. He explicitly condemned other forms. Such thought itself is against the fundamental message of Gita. Like someone already said, it is a blatant misuse of a sacred, secular text that is only meant to enlighten us, not force us to follow one particular reincarnation of God.He points to the text as if it were the sole recipe for one's moral and spiritual development. If you are inclined to believe that, then his edition of the Gita may be the one for you.On the other hand, notable scholars, including Merton, have praised this edition. It is certainly worth reading, albeit with the discretion of one's own God-given reason. You may find there are useful things that Prabhupada has to offer. You do get a glance of what it's like to be a true believer. Moreover, despite the literal reading, not all he has to say is counterproductive to reality. He does offer sharp commentary on a number of contemporary issues.I also want to clarify, however, that I am not meaning to accuse contemporary ISKCON adherents of having Prabhupada's own attitudes, and I am very gratified to hear it if they do not.If your interest is in the Hare Krishna organisation/ISKCON this would be the book 'asitis' will suit you.
-OM TAT SAT
I would suggest that anyone trying to understand bhagavad gita should not restrict himself to only one translation. It is impossible to grasp even the tiniest part of its essence in one book.I write my observations on Prabhupada's works and asitis text What I like about this version is the Sanskrit text, the roman transliteration and word-for-word translation of the text.It is very obvious from reading this version of Bhagavad Gita that the author has a deep reverence and devotion to Krishna. This is definetely a religious version of Bhagavad Gita. If you are more of a liberal spiritual type looking for a neutral spritual book, this is not that. Swami Prabhupada was a very religious man, not a liberal or eclectic spiritual teacher. He, as most people know, founded the Hare Krishna movement in the USA and COMPLETELY writes the Gita from the perspective of Krishna the Supreme Being and using the Gita as the science for pure devotion to Krishna. He is very opposed to even the idea of substituting Krishna to mean "Being, Absolute Reality your True Self" or any such words that are used in impersonal teachings. One way or the other, that is a very private matter that each of us needs to explore on our own, I just want to inform readers of how specific Swami Prabhupada is in his teachings so that those out there looking for a more "open minded" teaching might want to know this. However with that said, I do feel that Swami Prabhupada did write a beautiful book that is EXTREMELY THOROUGH and detailed in his beliefs.*
I have studied many Gitas and many holy books for that matter. Like I just said, Prabhupada is thorough and I admire him for it. Word-for-word Sanskrit translations alone are a major reason to study this edition. But it is still only ONE viewpoint among many. Leave aside for a moment the fact that he misleads the reader in the introduction by saying his commentary is bias-free. He also shows very little (to no) respect to other gurus who have produced their own commentaries -- except, of course, other Vaisnavas.*
These people have studied Sanskrit and know (and knew) about which they speak. They just have a different point of view. Yet instead of pointing out disagreement, Prabhupada flat-out dismisses them. Others have pointed out his translations that are bent to fit his bhakti-centric philosophy as well. Just because you disagree doesn't mean other points of view don't have merit.*
My post was simply to point out this fact. There's more than one way to look at something. What Prabhupada does, however, is stifle debate by hiding behind "disciplic succession" (as if his line is the only one) and calling those who came before him from other schools dog-eaters and rascals and blinded by illusion. That's like sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling loudly to drown out debate. But more importantly, to potential readers who don't know any better, it's akin to ideological strangulation. It's dishonest. Any teacher knows that.
What's wrong with Prabhupada's 'as it is'?
1.In the introduction to this Bhagavad Gita, Bhaktivedanta says that the reason he had to do his own translation of the Bhagavad Gita is because no one else got it right and he therefore he calls his translation of the Gita "As It Is" implying that everyone else's translation is "As It Isn't". Everyone else is wrong and he is the only one who is right. Incredible arrogance of the author is noted. This violates the first principle of a true devotee: nirahankar (or without pride) and nirabhimaan (without arrogance).*
2.There is a lot of negative energy flowing from Prabhupada in most of his writings. From any person of differing opinion, the repeated sentences of "those too ignorant to understand," or "less intelligent," are starting to really taint this book. If I had wanted to understand how condescending this Swami was, I could've figured it out some other way besides reading this book. It's a shame, because he is trying to convey the essence of Hinduism and the Krishna consciousness movement,and through his actions, making me wonder if this condescension is not an isolated occurrence.It is easy to compare the word-for-word transliteration actually presented with the commentary to see this. For example, words that clearly do not mean Krishna Consciousness have been translated/interpreted to mean as such. When you read the commentary, it seems to often go off on it's own agenda and not actually reflect the verse itself.If you read the book, it is less about a honest interpretation of the Gita than a rant about Mayavadas.It is also interesting that even though he makes attacks on others views on what the texts are about, this allows you to see the texts from different angles, although it's not the best way to do it.
"Take chapter 2 verse 72 of the original:
*"eSa brAhmIsthitih pArtha nainam prApya vimuhyati sthitvAsyAmantakAlepi brahmanirvAnamrcchati."
*This verse simply says "That is 'Brahman-status', O' prince. After obtaining it, a person is not disoriented; the one who is situated in it even at end-time does attain the 'Nirvana' that is 'Brahman'." *Bhaktivedanta twists and smooths over the technical terms to come up following translation: "That is the way of the spiritual and godly life, after attaining which a man is not bewildered. Being so situated, even at the hour of death, one can enter into the kingdom of God."
3.He repeats ad naseum that bhakti yoga is the only way to God regardless of what chapter of the Gita. To support this, he actually renders commentary that contradicts the sutras he is commenting upon. One would think that if his "Hare Krishna Hare Rama" mantra was so vitally important, Krishna would have mentioned it in the Gita at least a few dozen times? ten times? one time? No, not even once. In short, if he so deeply loved Lord Krishna, he certainly had a strange way of showing it. Prabhupada inserts his seemingly trademarked phrase, "Krishna consciousness," at any given opportunity. The word-for-word translations (not to be confused with the passage translations) offer some respite from this barrage, but they can be a pain to read given the grammatical differences between Sanskrit and English.
If you decide to get this, my advice is to read only the passage translations--and do that, even, with a grain of salt. I'm not sure if unadulterated translations of the Gita exist, but if you're looking for even a semblance of objectivity you wont find it in this book.*
4.Clearly the Gita discusses and develops a whole range of methods of practice in order for the Jiva (individual) to attain realisation of the absolute non-dual Brahman. There are also countless interpretations. However my feeling is that because of the inherent biases present in his rendition, many of the finer points and instructions of the Gita have been lost.Prabhupada was not only adamant that kirtana was the only means of salvation, but he was equally adamant that it was Krishna kirtana specifically. He explicitly condemned other forms. Such thought itself is against the fundamental message of Gita. Like someone already said, it is a blatant misuse of a sacred, secular text that is only meant to enlighten us, not force us to follow one particular reincarnation of God.He points to the text as if it were the sole recipe for one's moral and spiritual development. If you are inclined to believe that, then his edition of the Gita may be the one for you.On the other hand, notable scholars, including Merton, have praised this edition. It is certainly worth reading, albeit with the discretion of one's own God-given reason. You may find there are useful things that Prabhupada has to offer. You do get a glance of what it's like to be a true believer. Moreover, despite the literal reading, not all he has to say is counterproductive to reality. He does offer sharp commentary on a number of contemporary issues.I also want to clarify, however, that I am not meaning to accuse contemporary ISKCON adherents of having Prabhupada's own attitudes, and I am very gratified to hear it if they do not.If your interest is in the Hare Krishna organisation/ISKCON this would be the book 'asitis' will suit you.
-OM TAT SAT
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
"Achintya Bheda-Abheda Advaita" is a valid Hindu philosophy expounded by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada was a valid Acharya of the philosophy. Whatever differences any one (including myself) may have with the philosophy, we cannot deny its validity. It is a matter of opinion ('mata'). He sure made the philosophy known to millions outside India.
Is it necessary that a theory has support in Shruti and Puranas? That way no new theory would come up. Was there any support for Quantum Mechanics or Relativity in science before their times? I am an atheist advaitist Hindu. So what if my 'mata' may not find much support in Shruti and Puranas? Theories must be discussed on their own merits. Even then, some may accept one point of view and others may oppose it.hinduism♥krishna;3574823 said:What is the support of achintya bhedabheda theory in shruti and puranas ?
Last edited: