Talk:International Society for Krishna Consciousness/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hare krishna's are not hindu

they don't consider themselves Hindu, and most hindu's don't either. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 21:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's not quite true. Take a look at the "Hare Krishna and Hinduism" section of this ISCON UK page. [1]. It says they are both part of Hinduism and a separate religion. --LeeHunter 14:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, I acknowledge that there are some contridictory statements made, but for the sake of neutrality we must remain impartial. For this reason I have removed statements promoting one view or the other. However this issue is certain to resurface, and I feel the weight of the evidence is on my side (just look at the external links section). Cheers, Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 15:43, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The thing is, that Hinduism lacks a universally accepted definition. According to one common definition, Hindus accept the Vedas as the supreme scriptural authority, while ISKCON reveres the Bhagavad Gita as the supreme scriptural authority. That would technically make ISKCON a splinter group, though it is certainly more widely considered a Hindu sect. Mkweise 20:53, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Mkweise. I don't think there is a definition of Hinduism that can encompass all of what is commonly understand as Hinduism in India that would also exclude ISCKON. It claims to be promoting Sanatana Dharma, a key concept of Hinduism. There is certainly a degree of sectarianism (and the usual "we're right, everybody else is wrong" ideology that goes along with [[[The true believer: thoughts on the nature of mass movements|True Believers]]). But ISKCON is clearly associated with Hinduism. In a way it is a sort of extreme Hindu fundamentalism--God's Word, the Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, are taken to be literally true (despite requiring the intermediation of a so-called guru, many of which in ISKCON have had a poor track record in maintaining their own vows). older≠wiser 21:19, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
If one accepts the Hinduism article as accurate, it would be difficult to argue that Hare Krishna's are not part of the mix. The issue of whether Vishnu is an expression of Krishna or vice versa is a pretty esoteric point. Same with putting emphasis on one scripture over another. It's not really enough to disqualify you from Hinduism. Look at Christianity, which is not nearly as open-ended. Some folks believe in the divinity of Mary and some don't. Some think the Old Testament is unimportant and some think it is. Some jump up and down and roll on the ground and some sit quietly in their pews. And some Christians belong to tiny groups that fit the definition of cults. It doesn't mean that they're not still Christian. I also have my doubts about the claim that the 'majority' of Hindus believe that ISCON are not part of Hinduism. I could see that in certain quarters, some Hindus might think so, but I suspect that the majority of the 900 million don't really have an opinion one way or the other. --LeeHunter 23:08, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Alot of what you have said is likely true, but our position here is catalog information, the POV's of experts, not to quest for objective reality, or present our own POV's, however legitimate. The experts are divided on this one, much as they are about Mormonism (which considers itself jewish, I believe) and Jehovas witnesses (who think they are the only Christians, excluding other denominations) being Christian, regardless of consistancy with the wiki article on Christianity. Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 23:31, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
First I would like to add that ISKCON devotees are devoted to a large scope of Vedic literature, and literature in pursuit of the vedas. This range includes the Vedas, Brahmanas, Upanishads, Epics, Puranas, and various vernacular scriptures in English and Bengali. Given this, it is fair to note that they place a higher emphasis on scriptures such as the Bhagavad-Gita, Bhagavata Purana and the Caitanya Charitamrta. This scriptural tradition offers a solid link connecting ISKCON to other various "Hindu" denominations, whether that connection is acknowledged or not. Given this, it should be noted that the term "Hindu" is a recent phenomenon given the long history of the literary tradition. JCM 5/24/05
Had to add a note here. ISKCON reveres all of the Vedas, not just the Bhagavad Gita. We particularly study the Srimad Bhagavatam as well as other scriptures and have members actively translating additional texts at present. --ISKCON member 12/1/05

The definition of "Hinduism" has been used for the past few hundred years to describe the religions of South Asian that pay homage to one or more of the various traditions in pursuit of vedic literature and vedic tradition. In the attempt to catalog information, we have to recognize the limitations of these words and catagories. It is not unrealistic that ISKCON devotees could both identify as "Hindu" while also recognizing the limitations of that catagorization, and adding additional catagories to a complex personal identity. Many South Asian traditions use the term "Sanatana Dharma" which roughly translates to "eternal religion." This term acknowledges that the religious traditions now identifying as Hindu, did in fact exist long before the term "Hindu" was introduced as an historical evolution (albiet one that isn't easily dated).

The Caitanya Charitamrta (a Gaudiya Vaishnava hagiography on Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu) is one of the first "Hindu" scriptures to reference the word "Hindu." This scripture was constructed towards the end of the 15th century in Bengal, where Hindus identified their religious tradition in the context of a society ruled by a Muslem establishment. This date of 1500 BCE leaves the vast majority of Gaudiya Vaishnava literary tradition (from the Rig Veda circa 1500 BCE to the Caitanya Charitamrta circa 1500 CE) as predating "Hindu" identification.

The above sequence places the complex identity issue of Gaudiya-Vaishnava/Hindu/Sanatana-Dharma into its larger and more complex historical context.

My point is that these terms should never be so oversimplified as to allude to an either/or identity. JCM 5/24/05

I'd like to contribute to this discussion with the fact that Prabhupada often overtly denied any connection to Hinduism at all: 'The Krsna consciousness movement has nothing to do with the Hindu religion or any system of religion' (The Science of Self-realization, chapter 3). Another time he wrote: 'One should clearly understand that the Krsna consciousness movement is not preaching the so-called Hindu religion.' He could be even stronger in his judgement of Hinduism, calling it 'a dead religion' with 'no philosophy' (72-02-04.VAI) or 'a cheating religion' (731006BG.BOM). The last to references refer to Folio database 'The Complete Works of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada' (n.d.) and the Folio database 'The pre-1965 works of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada', Version 1.0, March 1995. PietjePrecies 15:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Book Pollution?

(Sorry - that's just an attention grabber) How about adding some statistics on the number of books published by the movement? There must be some truly remarkable (if not staggering) figures out there that may be of interest. I envision a graph with years on the X axis and thousands (or millions?) of books published on the Y axis...

User 66

The edit by user 66._._..... was partly helpful and partly vandalism. If someone has the time his edits should be checked for factual accuracy. freestylefrappe 20:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

I hope I did the right thing by posting a Copy Viol notice. At least one section is lifted from [2] (and other sites) verbatim. Paul, in Saudi 28 June 2005 13:15 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. However that site is a mirror of Wikipedia, presumably using the material properly (see the fine print at the bottom of the page). Cheers, -Willmcw June 28, 2005 20:06 (UTC)

Previous Version

I would like the person that reversed the revisions in the previous version to explain why they did so, because the changes were NPOV not POV. In fact this version that it was changed to is POV. When both the versions are compared you will see that the changes refer to the following:

1) Prabhupada's death is physical-only and not spiritual. My version pointed this. Thus my version puts forward a view that the challenger did not like. It is a question of whether the vision should become limited or not. A limited vision is POV not NPOV.

2) The new version mentioned that the eleven chosen disciples were given the task of being instructing and NOT initiating gurus.

3) Other groups that follow the ritvik method of initiations were mentioned.

4) The website sources were linked.

5) The new version tells facts and new views as is thus a NPOV however the version we have now is POV because it ignores the new views and their websites sources.

6) The book changes to Prabhupada's books were mentioned and sources for the originals.

--Volunteer 00:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Physical death as opposed to Spiritual

I have added the word "physical" in context of death because it is important to clarify for anyone wanting to understand. If we do not put the word "physical" preceding the word "death" or in context elsewhere than this would become POV. We have to put the other view also so that is NPOV and a compromise is through inserting the word "physical."

--Volunteer 11:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

What the article can say in accordance with NPOV is that some Hare Krishnas believe that Swami's death was merely physical. I will change the article to reflect this later today. Your changes are not in accordance with NPOV, since the overwhelming majority of people in the world believe that Swami's death was total. --goethean ॐ 14:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps using the word "Passing" or "passing on" may be a neutral phrase that both sides can appreciate. Siyavash 11:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


Please understand through this example that in this context could sound weird but is needed so we can develop understanding - a heavily conditioned "meat-eater" will disagree with a "vegetarian" however if the "meat-eater" always puts their meat eating on Wikipedia and deletes "vegetarian" points then this would become POV. Every "meat-eater" input should also have the "vegetarian" points - then there will not be any bias. The "physical" and "spiritual" wording clarifies the meaning. Goethean has shown some flexibility and to implement this the changes should not be put only on a sentence but wherever there is mention of the "death" word, the word "physical" should be put. There are several mentions of the "death" word, including a heading. I hope Goethean understands this and will allow me to make the necessary changes.
--Volunteer 19:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Er, no. I thnk Goethean has it phrased just about right. Wikipedia can certainly present the POV of those who subscribe to a belief system with no objective verifiability. But those beliefs should be clearly identified as such and not presented as simple "truth". There is little need to unecessarily insert awkward qualifying phrases throughout. older≠wiser 19:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Concerning the Brahman, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva issue

A commentator had, I believe, meant to mention the names of the trinity, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, and instead mistakenly used the phonetically similar word Brahman. As noted by another commentator, Brahman is an impersonal aspect of the Supreme Lord, God, and this is taught within the precepts of ISKCON. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are, according to the Srimad Bhagavatam, the creator, maintainer, and destroyer of the universe, respectively. They exist as a "trinity" and although Vishnu, the maintainer of the universe, is a plenary expansion of God, Brahma, and Shiva are demigods, strictly subordinate servitors to God in their positions for the creation and destruction of this universe. And, though Brahma creates the different forms of life after Vishnu creates the actual universe, these forms of life are then impregnated with their souls through an expansion Vishnu, not Brahma. Still, Vishnu is somewhat different from Krishna according to the scriptures provided by Srila Prabhupada. Although eternal, Vishnu exists for the creation and maintainance of the material world. All of the avatars of God, including those which incarnate (i.e., are "born") for a particular purpose, do originate from the body of Vishnu. However, ISKCON members believe that Krishna is the original, eternal form of God and is not an avatar or expansion. He is not an incarnation as avatars are. I am only trying to clarify a little here, as there seems to be so much discussion and speculation as to what we believe on this subject. Still this is a great simplification. I cannot possibly convey the full meaning of all that is written in our scriptures here. ISKCON member, 12/1/05.

Small correction and specification: Vishnu is present in various expansions both in material and spiritual realms. Krishna's topmost position is elaborated on prominently by Jiva Gosvami (16th cent) in his Krishna Sandarbha. - Jan/VEDA, 12/2/05
You are absolutley correct. In attempting to be brief, and cover only points previously mentioned, I had left out information that I assumed might confuse the issue further. Thank you for your input.

Pruning external links

The external links section is getting way out of hand. For example, there are nearly 20 links to random ISKCON members. According to the guidelines, Wikipedia is not a link repository. We don't need a link to every member, every pro-ISCON and every anti-ISKCON site. I propose to do some major pruning here. Comments anyone? --Lee Hunter 20:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Only sites which offer significant information not contained in the article should be listed. For our guidelines, see Wikipedia:external links. -Willmcw 02:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok I've done a major pruning of the external links. I've removed all the links to ISKCON member vanity pages, all the regional hq sites, some kind of blog that didn't seem to have more than insider chitchat, a few ISKCON offshoots etc. Here are the links I removed in case anyone would like to go through them and restore a few (I only checked a couple - mostly I just went by the description):

ISKCON:

ISKCON UK:


ISKCON Devotees:

  • ISKCON Devotees Profiles
  • H.H. Tamala Krishna Gosvami (1946-2002) - was an ISKCON Governing Body Commissioner and initiating spiritual master official website
  • H.H. Satsvarupa dasa Gosvami - While laboring as a social welfare worker in New York City's Lower East Side, Steve (soon to be initiated as Satsvarupa dasa) met his teacher, A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami (later known as Srila Prabhupada), a modern day saint from India. official website
  • H.H. Jayapataka Swami - appeared on the Ekadashi after Rama Navami amid opulent surroundings, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, North America, website here
  • H.H. Bhakti Caru Swami - Born in Bengal in 1945, and while studying in Germany, he developed a strong inclination towards Vedic philosophy.
  • H.H. Radhanath Swami - Born in the USA, he studied Islam, Christianity and Shaivism before finding his spiritual path in Krishna Consciousness.
  • H.H. Sachinandana Swami - born in Germany, he became a renunciate when he was just a teenager website here
  • H.G. Urmila Mataji - one of the leading female members, she specialises in Child Education article on Teaching Sanskrit
  • H.H. Kadamba Kanana Swami - born in the Netherlands, he started his spiritual life in Vrindavana, the Holy land of Krishna and immediately felt he found his home [3]
  • H.H. Bhakti Svarupa Damodara Swami, a renunciate who specialises in Vedic spirituality's scientific aspect
  • H.H. Sivarama Swami was born in Budapest, Hungary in 1949. His family emigrated to Canada during the failed 1956 Hungarian revolution when he was eight years old. website
  • H.H. Jayadvaita Swami served as an editor or assistant editor for nearly all the books that Srila Prabhupada published during Srila Prabhupada's lifetime. Bio
  • H.H. Mukunda Goswami was a close friend of Beatles legend George Harrison article
  • H.G. Krishna Dharma Dasa was born in Britain and translated the Vedic epic Mahabharata into English website
  • H.G. Ranchor Dasa took to the faith despite going to a Catholic school, where he was not taught about other religions on the grounds that it would be a waste of time as they were self-evidently false article
  • H.G. Satyaraja Dasa, born Steven J. Rosen, is editor of Back to Godhead. He does so as a service to Srila Prabhupada, who started the magazine over fifty years ago artlicle on Violence and Religion
  • H.H. Hrdayananda Gosvami, (Dr. Howard J. Resnick, Ph.D.), completed the translation of the Vedic scripture, Bhagavata Purana, into various modern languages as a service to Srila Prabhupada website

This page is in need of serious improvement

I've gone ahead and made a few changes to the page today and have listed the reasons by each one. But feel it really needs a lot of work still. More detailed descriptions, pictures? Also I see little point in having 3 external links to the same website on the same issue, so have kept it to one per site in each section. People will just skip past them otherwise. My apologies for any offence this may cause. GourangaUK 16:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Reordered comments

Just out of curiousity I went back to this page to see if my links were still there. Just as a thought after a couple of hours of putting the links they were gone. Does anyone know who I can complain to in this website? bhaktin Miriam

I have added a few links to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness page a couple of months ago, but I realized that my links were being deleted. So, I added them again and again because they kept being removed. That annoyed me a lot. Then a couple of days ago, I was banned from this site for repeatledly committing vandalism, or at least that is what the message said. That was very scary for me since I have only added links and I have not touched anyone else's contributions.

On Novemeber 15, 2005 Narendra dasa wrote that he removed the child abuse section because he felt that those links were a smeared campaing against the Hare Krishnas. He also mentioned that child abuse in ISKCON (the Hare Krishna institution) is an old story that happened ten years ago.

I implore you, Narendra dasa to please leave that child abuse section alone. Anyone who goes into those links will see for themselves that the child abuse problem in the Hare Krishna Movement is alive and well. It is not a smear campaing.

I myself, have research this topic extensively for the past 5 years and have read numerous reports from ISKCON's Child Protection Office. I have even written several articles concerning this.

You are welcome to take a look at the articles that I have written in the past few months by going to one of the several Hare Krishna websites. My oldest article was published in the internet 5 years ago: http://www.oldchakra.com/articles/2000/08/16/dhanurdhara.swami/ My most recent articles were published in the very popular and acitve ISKCON friendly website, Chakra.org. One such article, written in two parts summarizes the Persistent Child Abuse Problem in the Hare Krishna movement: http://chakra.org/discussions/GurAug01_04.html http://chakra.org/discussions/GurAug02_04.html Other articles that I have written have been published in the Sampradaya Sun website, a very busy daily news site for Hare Krishna devotes. Please take a look at one such article and another one from Pandu dasa:

http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/editorials1.htm http://www.harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/editorials1.htm#9

My purpose is not to smear the Hare Krishna movement, but to bring to light that there are current conroversies and scandals in ISKCON

Yasodabhaktin MiriamYasodaDecember 3, 2005 P.S. I hope my links are still there.


I've edited a section and renamed as "Different Vaisnava Religions", I think is self explanatory, but if anyone has dobuts are free to ask and I can extend this explanation more or add new links if needed --Narendra dasa Nov 15 2005

I'm sorry for only remove sections of this article without explanation, I'm in the process to learn how wikipedia works, I've remove child abuse section because in this iskcon are shown as a sect like moon or something, please see both sides of the case, 1) iskcon has been drop out all people involved on child abuse, 2) this child abuse has been take placed more than 10 years ago, and now exist an office to evite this will happen again http://www.childrenofkrishna.com 3) I can see this child abuse old histories are used only as an campaing against our religion and with the only one objetive to made rich a lawyer head, do you known lawyer head ask iskcon to pay 400 millions? http://www.religioustolerance.org/hare.htm , also the other side of iskcon can be viewed at www.ffl.org the biggest vegetarian food relief organizacion, The real thing about the persecution of iskcon devotees can be viewed at http://www.hkussr.com/hkussr/hkdoc01sec1p1.htm and http://www.hkussr.com/hkussr/HKdoc02p1.htm Persecution and psychiatric abuse of hare krishna's devotees in the urss. So my intention is to show the real thing only. --Narendra dasa Nov 15 2005

The article previously claimed that as in Catholic last rites, Hare Krishnas believe that the maha-mantra will liberate one's soul at the point of the death. That was an oversimplification of the held belief. The original statement was not well-phrased, though well-meant. To clarify this, that sentence has been edited.

Moreover, the overview was slightly expanded for the purposes of clarification.

--Madhuha Dasa, 15 Oct 2005


I have deleted the link for "Spiritual Realization Institute" because the Institute, although advocating Krishna consciousness, is not connected with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (the subject of this article) and the site offers no content directly pertaining to the Society. Krishna Dasa, 16 Oct 2004

ISKCON comes from the sect Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Andries 31 Jan 2004


Hello User 129.127.46.214,

Why did u remove this information about Prabhupada's successor's. Don't remove but improve and correct. Otherwise you commit unconstructive behavior. At least write on the discussion page why you removed that phrase. I will put this message both on your user page as well as on the ISKCON talk page. Thanks in advance. Andries 19:12, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)


From now on I will revert any change that I don't understand that has been implemented without any explanation on the talk page. There are too many strange deletions and edits of this article. If you remove content then please explain why. I think I know the reason though. Please improve and correct. Don't just remove. Andries 20:55, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Changes I've implemented: it said that ISKCON revived the Chaitanya movement in India whereas the Chaitanya movement has had a strong and continuous following in East India for more than four centuries, with groups not even associated with Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Secondly, 'leaving this material world' is not appropriate phraseology for his death in an article that claims to be NPOV. That also goes for the proselytizing bit at the very end, which talked about how it, unlike other vedas sects, wishes to convert without regard for faith and to spread love of God. Clearly biased, as 1) it backhands other Hindu sects for not trying to spread the word, 2) is redundant since proselytizing is innately about converting and thus not concerned with the other person's faith and 3) brings in bias about whether God's love can be spread, since many may not believe in God or ISKCON's methodology of accessing 'God.' --LordSuryaofShropshire 07:50, Apr 4, 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for your explanation. Some people just removed content without giving an explanation and that is why I wrote such a strict warning on the talk page. The warning wasn't meant for edits like yours. I think the mysterious deletions have to do with the power struggle between the reform movement and the people who are the current gurus. But we would like to have a good, NPOV article and this power struggle should be stated and explained, not just ignoring it or write a one sided version of the events. Andries 08:08, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As of today, this article appears still to be biased, rather more like promotional material for the organization. Also, Krishna, Vishnu and Shiva are all supposed to be Avatars of Brahman, so claiming that is it a distinguishing principle for this group to assert the "non-difference" of Krishna from the supreme godhead is deceptive, since all Hindus believe that already. I don't want to touch it, though, because my knowledge of the organization and Hindu mythology is limited.glasperlenspiel 01:46, Jun 27, 2004 (UTC)


No, it is not a balanced article and I think it even contains mistakes (that are part of the ISKCON propaganda) but I miss the knowledge to be certain and to correct them. ISKCON and Gaudia Vaishnava believe that the form of Vishnu is always Krishna, unlike mainstream Hinduism. Andries16:24, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it gives information about ISKCON and its beliefs, as it is supposed to as a page in Wikipedia encyclopedia. I believe the bias on balance is more tilted against the organisation than for it, although perhaps someone could include info about some allegations of child abuse and how (well or badly) they dealt with it. By the way I am a hindu, though not a Hare Krishna devotee but sometimes attend their meetings.Nondualist


I have removed the half of the mantra because I had never heard of it. (I know quite a lot about ISKCON). And besides I couldn't find it on the ISKCON website. Andries 08:50, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just a comment: "Krishna, Vishnu and Shiva are all supposed to be Avatars of Brahman." That is false. First of all, an avatar by definition is an earthly incarnation of Vishnu. Secondly, Brahman is not a god, or even God. Brahman is the Truth, a formless, personality-less, infinite, Divine Ground, bereft of attributes and beyond time, space, and causation. Brahman does not have 'incarnations'. Lastly, different sects of Hinduism believe different things; there's no single authoratative view of Hindu belief. --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:53, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
Further to what Lord Surya of Shropshire says of Hinduism, I've revised this sentence "Unlike Hinduism, which rarely seeks converts, ISKCON is an actively evangelical group." Hinduism is not the Roman Catholic church. It encompasses such a vast range of beliefs and practises it doesn't make sense to personalize it in this way. So I've changed it to this "Unlike other Hindu groups, which rarely seek converts, ISKCON is actively evangelical.". The Hare Krishnas, for all intents and purposes, are a Hindu sect whether or not they themselves believes this and whether or not other Hindu groups want to acknowledge them. --LeeHunter 14:44, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I put NPOV on this because it is clearly written by Krsna devotees. I'm not knocking on ISKCON, but the article has to be written for a general audience. Currently, there are many references without citations, and the much of the article sounds like a defense of ISKCON instead of a nuetral, balanced discussion. Metta, Defenestrate

Copyedit, third person NPOV tone, chuck a lot of controversy babble

I copyedited the article, and recast everything into encyclopaedic language. For me, this means

  • Third person secular throughout
  • People die (instead of "meeting their maker," "going to Heaven," or "departing this physical realm)
  • Technical terms about religious beliefs are explained in common parlance
  • Beliefs themselves belong to believers, and are beliefs instead of understandings

I also chucked a bunch of crime/sex abuse babble, and moved the list of ideological controversies under the heading it seemed to fit under.

Please note that I am disinterested in the subject. I've had some great food at a few temples in my time, but I don't have a very strong opinion about ISKCON because I'm Buddhist. I just want the facts here, no evangelism. --Defenestrate 00:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Defenestrate - I agree with your above points, and will go through the edits in detail incase I can see anything which appears incorrect from my perspective, and it can be discussed. I've been involved with Iskcon for over 10 years and have also read much external scholarly input on the movement. I can see you motivation is to improve the article. I strongly feel that the philosopy of Iskcon should be presented on this page as first and foremost Iskcon is a philosophical 'religious' movement, but it should be in a scholarly, 'neutral' way where possible, I agree. Best wishes, GourangaUK 20:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

We're moving forward. I think the article is neutral in that it doesn't put anyone in an overly harsh or overly critical light. But it's not a well-structured explanation of ISKCON, and the links section is ridiculously long for an article of this size.

One suggestion might be to separate out the different topics into multiple articles or sections:

  • ISKCON, the organization, which I imagine is like a religious denomination, complete with all the worldly problems that go along with such an organization
  • Hare Krsna religious practice & belief
  • The Maha Mantra
  • How Chaitanya Mahaprabhu came up with the maha mantra
  • Similarities and differences between Hare Krsna/ISKCON, vaisnaism (sp), and hinduism
  • Cult allegations and popular perception of ISKCON
  • Sexual abuse scandals

Again, I really think we should get rid of about half the links. The whole "official"/"unofficial" tag doesn't belong here, either.

--Defenestrate 18:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Reversal of Mahamantra

The views expressed for reversal of Mahamantra have only anecdotal evidences, and are mainly upheld by some of the followers of other Gaudiya movements. This is not central to the beliefs of ISKCON, and can be best removed from the text alltogether, if no references are provided to substantiate the views. I too added one such view, which also can be deleted.

--Tharikrish 15:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason given for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's inversion of the mantra is that he wanted to spread it to all the fallen souls of the current Kali Yuga, regardless of qualification. Since there were injunctions that the Vedic mantras (including those in Upanishads) are not to be chanted publicly or by members of the lower castes, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu reversed the two halves so as not to offend the orthodox Brahmins, claiming it to be equally potent either way, and in the altered form it could be freely distributed and chanted in public. He then began his mission to spread this mantra publically to 'every town and village' in the world, travelling extensively throughout India, distributing the Maha-Mantra.

I will endeavour to check the above statement for rejection/acceptance by an Iskcon authority (i.e an ACBSP reference). None seem to be apparent from an initial search in the Vedabase. GourangaUK 17:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tharikrish - In relation to the above I have found the following quotation by Srila Prabhupada in the Sri Caitanya Caritamrita Adi-lila 7.76 purport:
  • Similarly, the Kali-santarana Upanishad states, "Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare"
No-where could I find Srila Prabhupada ever quoting the Maha-Mantra the other way around so I think you are quite right that the statment above shouldn't be included in this ISKCON page. Thankyou for pointing this out. Ys, GourangaUK 08:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The four regulative principles

This is shown under the major sub-heading "Points of philosophical contention". Contention generally means "a point asserted as part of an argument". I have seen some references to the four regulative principles in certain publications saying that vegetarianism is unhealthy and that of some vegan groups maintaining that this is not true vegetarianism. Otherwise there is no argument among any of the Vedic/Vedanata/Hindu/traditional Indian or even Gaudiya groups where the four regulative principles are involved. Therefore this section can be moved up under a main sub-heading. Kindly check on this aspect. -Tharikrish 09:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello Tharikrish - I believe a small number of people thought this to be controvestial because some other Vaishnava groups do not insist on such rules being followed in order to take initiation. However I see no problems with it being seperated in it's own section. It's not really all that controversial in my opinion. GourangaUK 12:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect information

"Just before his physical departure, Prabhupada set up a system of initiation employing the use of ritviks (ceremonial priests) who would continue to initiate on his behalf during his physical presence, without the need for any physical involvement from Prabhupada. In this way, while Prabhupada was physically present, he could continue to initiate new disciples and remain the initiating guru of the movement."

Nowhere in the directive that set up the ritvik system itself does it state that it must run "during Prabhupada's physical presence". This is a baseless assumption. Therefore the above two sentences should say:

"Just before his physical departure, Prabhupada set up a system of initiation employing the use of ritviks (ceremonial priests) who would continue to initiate on his behalf, without the need for any physical involvement from Prabhupada. In this way, Prabhupada could continue to initiate new disciples and remain the initiating guru of the movement."

So my question is, why does it keep getting changed back? An encyclopedia is meant to give FACTS. Since you cannot back up the sentiment that the ritvik system was meant to run until Prabhupada's physical departure, stating this is WRONG. Plain and simple. Whether or not "most people agree" that the ritvik system was meant to be disbanded has nothing to do with the fact that such a statement is not found in the letter dated July 9th, 1977, which was the directive setting up the ritvik system. If most people agree that 2+2=17 that doesn't make it a fact. Most people can agree on all sorts of nonsense. The fact is that the July 9th, 1977 directive makes no mention of the ritvik system running only until Prabhupada's physical departure. Therefore please rectify your encyclopedia entry. Thank you.

In reply to the above please see: http://www.jswami.info/ritvik Jayadvaita Swami has already investigated the question in much detail. What is the gain in promoting the argument here on Wikipedia? It is already mentioned in the main text under the title 'The Guru (spiritual master) and the Parampara (the disciplic succession)'. GourangaUK 21:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


^^^ Prabhu, I am not herein arguing anything beyond the "system of initiation employing ritviks" of which "Prabhupada set up" that is mentioned in the above quotation. The directive that set up that system makes no mention in regard to Srila Prabhupada being physically present on this earth. Therefore stating that Srila Prabhupada set up a ritvik system to run while he was present is baseless. To be neutral, the statement should exclude this biased sentiment. It should simply state that Srila Prabhupada set up a ritvik system before his departure and some believe that it is meant to continue after his departure. To include that it was meant only for his presence is biased. That would be like someone writing the entry for the holocaust and making a statement or implication that the holocaust never happened.

By the way, I am having difficulty with that link. It may just be the computer I am using. I will try elsewhere another time.


IN REPLY - With all due respect, I don't see how the below statement is in anyway biased. It DOES mention that it was set up while Srila Prabhupada was still physically present:

"Just before his physical departure, Prabhupada set up a system of initiation employing the use of ritviks (ceremonial priests) who would continue to initiate on his behalf during his physical presence, without the need for any physical involvement from Prabhupada. In this way, while Prabhupada was physically present, he could continue to initiate new disciples and remain the initiating guru of the movement. Based on most of Prabhupada's statements in letters, most agree that it was right that the system stopped upon Prabhupada's passing. Indeed, the proxy-initiation ritvik system was disbanded in 1977, on the basis of Prabhupada's instructions in letters and tapes."

"A minority, namely the ISKCON Revival Movement, say it was a permanent order meant to continue even after Prabhupada died. More information about the proxy-initiation ritvik position is offered in "The Final Order," the main position paper of the IRM."

I'm at a loss as to what to more to say on this one? Hare Krishna, ys, GourangaUK 13:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

You said:

"It DOES mention that it was set up while Srila Prabhupada was still physically present"

Yes. It says this in the very first part:

"Just before his physical departure, Prabhupada set up a system of initiation"

But the discrepancy is not with this first part. The discrepancy is with what it says right after that:

"employing the use of ritviks (ceremonial priests) who would continue to initiate on his behalf during his physical presence" (emphasis added)

Notice how the line, "During his physical presence" is completely unfounded. Nowhere in the directive that officially established the rivtik system does it state that the system was to run "during his (Prabhupada's) physical presence". This is not my interpretation of what the July 9th, 1977 directive says. This is the July 9th, 1977 directive AS IT IS. Therefore it would be only logical to omit that line from the sentence.

You refer to Jayadvaita Swami's position papers, but that has nothing to do with this simple, logical point. The directive that officially established the ritvik system says nothing in regard to it running only during Srila Prabhupada's physical presence. I am being very lenient here. I am not saying that you should make this encyclopedia entry reflect the ritvik position. I am simply saying that it should reflect the facts.

The fact is that Srila Prabhupada set up a ritvik system. Period. That is what should be stated. Nothing more. Then, you can write that some people believe this system was meant to stop upon Prabhupada's physical departure and some believe it was meant to continue. Therefore please correct this article so that it reflects the facts. Thank you.

Hare Krishna

IN REPLY - My apologies Prabhu, now I see your point, I had not understood exactly what you were saying before. What do you think of Dwayne's amended text below? GourangaUK 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this - I have removed the two references to physically present.

Passing of knowledge is named Parampara or disciplic succession. Some Gaudiya Vaisnava's claim that one needs to learn only from Srila Prabhupada and that should be no other gurus. Just before his physical departure, Srila Prabhupada set up a system of initiation employing the use of ritviks (ceremonial priests) who would continue to initiate on his behalf, without the need for any physical involvement from Srila Prabhupada (as, during this time, Srila Prabhupada was very ill). Based on Srila Prabhupada's statements in letters, most agree that it was right that the system stopped upon Prabhupada's passing. Thus, the proxy-initiation ritvik system was disbanded in 1977, on the basis of Prabhupada's instructions in letters and tapes.

A minority, named ISKCON Revival Movement, say it was a permanent order meant to continue even after Prabhupada died. More information about the proxy-initiation ritvik position is offered in "The Final Order," the main position paper of the IRM.

Let me know if you agree. Thanks Dwayne Kirkwood 04:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So my question is, how come you didn't write, "(as, during this time, Srila Prabhupada was very ill)" in the original entry? All of the sudden it is applicable now? And what is the implication? It sounds like an attempt to rationalize something that is ulterior to the ritvik system Srila Prabhupada set up. Once again, if I am wrong in thinking this, how come you didn't explain that Srila Prabhupada was ill in the original entry? Thank you.


I didn't write the original entry and hadn't reviewed the text before, but that is the situation under which Srila Prabhupada wrote the letter starting the Ritvik system. I think it's an important addition as it helps people outside of the movement understand the situation in which the Ritvik system was started. Dwayne Kirkwood 18:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Opening comment

I switched the order in which the Bhagavata Purana and the Bhagavad Gita were mentioned in the very beginning of this article out of respect for the Bhagvatam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.99.134 (talk) 09:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The 'Maha Mantra'

Under the contents section of the article "The 'Maha Mantra'" it has a link from the word 'Hare' to an article on 'Hari'. In my understanding 'Hare' is the feminine potency of Krishna, and 'Hari' is a masculine name of Krishna, so it seems misinformation? Perhaps an article on 'Hare' could be started and the link set to that instead? This also goes for the "Hare (disambiguation)" page which says that it is the Sanskrit vocative? Maybe I am wrong.

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 121.72.11.194 (talk) 21:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Hare now links to the Hara disambiguation page (which is what becomes Hare in the vocative). Thanks for pointing it out. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

ISKCON and Religious Survey of 53 Clergy

Hello Smeelgova - although I appreciate your adding to the ISKCON article, I genuinely feel that a survey of mainly Christian (and one Jewish) clergy about their opinion of so-called 'cults' is irrelevant in this instance. I say this not because of personal bias (there is significant negative but relevant material in the article), but on the following grounds:

  • 1) Are Christian clergy expected to be a neutral and well-informed source for information on other religious groups who they are in philosophical disagreement with (in terms of their own theologies) and with whomn they have little or no dealings with on a regular basis? I cannot imagine anyone answering with solid evidence to the positive. If it had been a survey of 'neutral' academic observers then the findings would give a very different story.
  • 2) The very notion of 'cult' when studying religious movements gives a negative bias to begin with. See [4]
  • 3) I believe the conclusion given to be grossly incorrect. The following quote from a non-Iskcon scholar who has spent time investigating the movement gives (IMO) a much more accurate version : "Simply put, ISKCON has been present in the West for twenty five years. If it was, in fact, a danger to society, we would have long ago discovered that threat and dealt with it. Rather than a danger, ISKCON has shown itself capable of raising up a religious community which turned a number of people alienated from society in the 1970s into substantial law-abiding citizens who have in turn developed a program of service to the community through its efforts to feed the poor and other acts of charity. ISKCON does not threaten any Country's constitutional freedoms. Quite the opposite is true. In a series of cases it has been demonstrated that ISKCON's constitutional freedoms have been continually threatened by its having to repeatedly defend itself on issues which have previously been considered by Courts and discarded."

I am not simply reverting your edit for the sake of it, and am happy to discuss the matter further should you so desire. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S - (as just reminded by the fireworks) Happy New Year for 2007.

I would like to hear what other frequent editors of that article have on the subject - it might be well for us to move this discussion to that article's talk page. Happy new year to you as well! Smeelgova 00:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Comments from other editors

  • This was the sourced survey of 53 religious clergy that was removed from the article, twice:

In 1993, Rev. Dr. Richard L. Dowhower conducted a survey of clergy to assess their opinions of cults, entitled "Clergy and Cults: A Survey". The 53 respondents were from the Washington, DC area and included 43 Lutheran clergy and seminarians, one Roman Catholic and one Jewish clergyman, and an Evangelical minister. Eighteen percent of those questioned about "The cults I am most concerned about are", gave the answer of "Unification Church, Hare Krishna"
Referenced Citation
(removed from ref formatting to show editors location/citation)
Clergy and Cults: A Survey, The Rev. Richard L. Dowhower, D. D., Cult Observer, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1994).

  • So, what do other editors think of adding this information to the article? User:GourangaUK has written his opinions in the section above. Smeelgova 00:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC).


The proposed addition offers precious little relevant factual information. Most of the text concerns the survey itself, and especially the composition of the sample of clergy surveyed. The survey sample is terribly small--53 people out of. . . how many members of the clergy are there in the United States? As far as I can tell, the sample is so small as to be essentially worthless: that is, one can't properly use it to form a broader understanding of the opinion of "the clergy in general" (or even any meaningful subset of the clergy).

The composition of this small sample is odd--43 out of 53 are Lutherans, we've got one Jew, one Evangelical, and one Roman Catholic, and as for the rest we're in the dark. And even if we weren't--what in the world is such an odd sample supposed to represent? What are we supposed to learn?

It's also clear from the original source article that the person who conducted the survey is a partisan, not a sociologist or a neutral poll-taker. And it's also clear that the language in the survey (e.g., "I have had the following personal experiences with destructive cults") is loaded.

With all these exceedingly unprofessional features, how useful is this survey supposed to be?

The content relevant to ISKCON boils down to the fact that about 10 members of the clergy in Washington, D.C., say that Hare Krishna is one of the two cults they're "most concerned about." That's not terribly enlightening, is it?

This material seems unworthy of inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. I suggest we reserve the article for more worthy content.

Cordially,

O Govinda 14:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

And the cults which most western Atheists are concerned with are Lutheranism, Protestantism, and Catholicism. This doesn't tell us anything beyond the bias of the groups involved, and is not a respectable source by any means. Two of the groups listed are mainstream denominations, Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, who are often given as 'cults' by other major religious groups because they evangelise, taking their members. 'New Age' isn't even a religious movement. Let's not not give this rag any prominence by using it when you're just arbitrarily fishing for sources that point out the Hare Krishnas as a cult. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Scandals and Controversies

These people were in EVERY major American airport in the '70s--my brother and I (chidlren of airline pilot, we traveled a lot) joked about them all the time and knew to avoid them. The airports were literally crawling with the Krishnas, hence the endless jokes about the phenomenon in movies like Airplane! There was even a lawsuit, although I don't remember if the Krishnas or the airports won. Why is there no mention of this--of the lawsuit if nothing else?

64.132.218.4 (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree a special mention should be made of them "living" in airports and harassing customers. 124.254.75.48 (talk) 05:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
"Literally crawling" ? Hello, this an encyclopaedia. Facts, please, not semi-literate opinion. 121.44.1.12 (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of the poison controversy

This issue needs to be included in any history of ISKCON. The evidence, particularly the evidence that Srila Prabhupada repeatedly brought up the subject justifies its inclusion in this article. Anuttamadasi (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


kind attention GaurangaUK from Myshriam-Musiris

I do think it is necessary to highlight scandals and controversies of an organization and that too a religious one, under the misguided assumption that it is an intrinsic part of the organization, and in the interest of neutrality (of all things) one should feel compelled to air it.

There is a crude Punjabi proverb: “If you stick a finger up your anus, it’s bound to come off smelling of stool.” The point is: everybody has got a real end, and its smells. But if you think that its something the world at large is waiting with baited breathes to get a whiff of, and that too it its encyclopedia, then you are wrong.

Sir, I have no wish to read of controversies and scandals in a publication that poses as an encyclopedia. Its here I seek relevant information that pertains to the organization, learn what it stands for and hear what it has to say about itself. In other words, I want and am looking for here is clean information. Dirt, I can always get that at other places.

So an encyclopedic article on Nazism should only help you "learn what it stands for and hear what it has to say about itself" and leave out "controversies and scandals"? And no, before you get upset, I am not comparing ISKON to the Nazi party, I am simply pointing out the weakness in your argument. In fact, I would say your opinion on protecting the image of ISKON by hiding information simply because it is not "clean" is the definition of POV. I think currently this article presents a safe, clean, honest view of ISKON, and even paints the organization in a good light by crediting it with accepting its flaws and dealing with them in a positive way. In this example, without bringing out the 'dirt' you can't bring out the 'clean'. 190.10.1.35 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

However, if you insist on carrying on, by brute force, I will not stop you. Indeed, I find the entries in the Wikipedia a joke. It seemed obviously swamped with the ill-educated, the unpublished and warped.

If you have anything personal against this organization, I suggest that you create your own blog and air your complaint to your hearts content. Let the Wikipedia be; it’s too good a thing to spoil with petty points of views.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.95.236.82 (talk) 12:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

All wikipedia pages must conform to the wikipedia guides, including NPOV. It's unfortunate ISKCON went through so many problems, but they must be presented here as not to make the article bias. Chopper Dave 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me see now, Mr Chopper Dave, would a neutral point of view of, say, yourself, include what one odd person thought of you? “Mr. Chopper Dave is an unemployed looser who pretends that he is someone important by having taken on an active role of a wikipedian.” Would that be an unbiased, neutral POV? The rest of the world might think, “Mr. Chopper Dave is a scholar, a Brahmin, one who likes nothing better to do that harmlessly, quietly disburse knowledge towards which he would gladly devote countless unpaid hours.” The second, I imagine, would be the more accurate and unbiased view of your good self. 59.95.202.194 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
If the first were true and verifiable (has references and so forth) then that would be fine. But since it's not, then obviously not. What happened with ISKCON is true, and verifiable. Many people were affected, and thus the information is deemed important enough to 'print'. Chopper Dave 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Scandals, controversies, in any organization, are caused by inimical persons, misguided individuals, with ulterior motives. The organization is the victim of such vicious attacks. By including such tainted information on the organization, or for that matter on anybody, merely because you have the power to do so, and on grounds of pseudo neutrality, you would be guilty of bearing false witness. That's the bottom line. But, “Thou shall not bear false witness” is the commandment. So, you really don’t want to be inadvertently breaking that commandment--and that too for absolutely no gain! 59.95.202.194 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound like the organisation and the people within it are completely separate entities. Absolutely no gain? Honesty is gained by it's inclusions, deceit is gained by it's removal. To say that ISKCON hasn't had it's fair share of problems would be to lie. To represent ISKCON without representing those within ISKCON would be deceit. Feel free to be honest about some of the glories of ISKCON (and it's people) within the article, to throw in some counterbalance if you feel necessary. Chopper Dave 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mishriam (I'm assuming you are the same user but not logged in?) - Please also refer to my comments on your user talk page which you would be noted of each time you log in to your account. I believe the issue here is more a misunderstanding of the purpose and Wikipedia than anything else. Please also see Wikipedia:No personal attacks in regards to your statement made above to Chopper Dave which came dangerously close to such in my opinion. Ys, Gouranga(UK) 10:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No, my response to Chopper Dave was not a personal attack, but merely a demonstrative one to prove a point. Even so, I offer my apologies.

As regards the Neutral Point of View clause, I think its being seriously misunderstood. NPOV is not a licence to slander, put out the dirty linen. Rather, NPOV should serve to keep out such trivalries. NPOV would immediately discern such titbits as thinly veiled attack and immediately disallow it.

I do not find the Encyclopaedia Britannica or the other established knowledge banks so forthcoming with bold titles that scream ‘Scandals and Controversies.’ Indeed, such title smacks of naivety and immaturity. It along the lines of, “Hey, what to hear some juicy trivially?” What’s that title doing in an encyclopaedia, you wonder, and steer clear off.

Yes, wikipedia has quantity, but in an encyclopaedia, it has always been the other word that matters. Quality. And in its shadows stands the other key operative word: Restraint. Together they make the golden standard for an encyclopaedia. Sadly the Wikipedia lacks both.

And, that seems to have finally gotten through to the Wikipedia boss. For in today’s newspaper, I read him saying that he is planning to change the model. It’s no longer going to be freely editable. Your changes will be peer-reviewed, and only if it passes, will it be published. Personally, I think its popularity is because it provides a forum for a lot of unsung scholars out there to make their lives a little less drab. Mishriam-musiris 18:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

There is no good reason to remove 'negative' information from the article. Sure, it may make ISKCON look bad in the eyes of some, but the truth is those things happened and shouldn't be hidden from those who want to know. Chopper Dave 20:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, its exactly this kind of stubbornness that is ruining the wikipedia. How can you satisfy me that your opinion is not biased, that you are not using the NPOV stance, its perverted interpretation, to conveniently air your personal views. There are a numbers of people out there who, for their own profit, would not hesitate to malign ISKCON. This is a know fact, and anybody in the know will tell you that its a power struggle. How do we know you aren't one of them? You should reveal your identity and let others decide if you are clean on this issue.Stop hiding behind the NPOV clause, if indeed that's what you are doing. Mishriam-musiris 05:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Who I am has little to do with this. My point is that there is no good reason to remove the information. It's verifiable and considered important. Your thoughts appear to be "Why not just have good stuff about ISKCON - why the dirt?", please correct me if i'm wrong. Chopper Dave 05:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I also believe it is important to keep the information in the article but have amended the title and introductory sentance, as maybe 'scandal' was not the best word to use in this instance? Regards, ys Gouranga(UK) 12:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much Gauranga. That title edit was expertly done. It does take the rawness from the whole section! I have dared to change 'death' from the earlier title, to 'Disappearance' and I hope none of you have reason to object to that minor edit. (Be grateful I am not lopping off entire sections!) It's the correct terminology here and the edit does not really change anything. Vaishnava acharyas appear and they disappear. Gauranga, will vouchsafe for that. As for Chopper Dave, here is a promise: You become an Vaishnave acharya and upon your death, We'll say that you disappeared! Thanks once again Gauranga. And, Hare Krishna! Mishriam-musiris 16:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
We will have to stick with 'death' rather than 'disappearance' in regards to Prabhupada. It's Point of View to say that somebody 'disappeared' in that sense. Regards, ys, Gouranga(UK) 17:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Mishriam-musiris, i'll try. Chopper Dave 18:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes on details of abuse: In the now-repeated revision of my details, there seems to be some pains taken to maintain a relatively unthreatening picture of when abuse occurred (supposedly mainly just "1978-1988", a period that conveniently starts after the founder's death and ends almost 20 years ago), and of who was responsible for uncovering it (even as I write, the article makes it sounds like the gurukula-abuse story was first revealed by ISKCON in its own publication in 1998, whereas in fact it had been reported, though not in as complete detail, by others years previously.)

While that may be a comfortable belief for some admirers of ISKCON, it has the drawback of not being supported by the facts. At the very least, an encyclopedia article should give enough facts for people to come to their own conclusions and dispel any prevailing misconceptions. I am therefore attempting to provide this factual basis by including a sufficiently detailed picture of the time-frame for readers to understand and investigate the unfortunate story of abuse within ISKCON. I am trying to stay concise, only adding a few sentences, but I think it's quite reasonable to state briefly the full time period of the Robin George case (which I've attempted to do, but it's been reverted twice), name the sources cited (which has also been reverted), and mention earlier reports of abuse allegations (which I'm about to do, and would rather not see reverted.) I also plan to delete the "from 1978" summary starting point, since the cases mentioned in the articles do not support the assertion that things were generally fine before then. (Though I will agree that the problems reported in the article don't seem to continue past 1988, so I'll leave in "before 1988".)

If anyone has any objections to this, please state them here, rather than just reverting. Thanks! 130.91.116.49 16:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Anon, I appreciate your desire to clarify the details on this subject. In reply to your points:
The decade 1978-1988 is the time period wherein the vast majority of abuse cases and other internal problems took place. The Robin George case in 1976 was a totally different issue to that of the gurukulas. Robin testified to joining the movement voluntarily and the court case had a lot to do with ISKCON being incorrectly perceived as a dangerous cult by her parents. See this article for example.
I agree we should not give the impression that the stroy of child-abuse wasn't reported until 1998. I'm sure this was not intended in the article and will ensure it is clear that it came to light during the 1980's.
The reference you gave (New York Times article) were not removed (that I am aware of) and I have checked again and could not see anything else which had been added?
Regards, Gouranga(UK) 18:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Folks , I am an orthodox vaishnavite, and an admirer of ISKCONs efforts. But foremost , i am an honest human being and hence i do feel that the section abt scandals should remain. It is fact, and admitting it doesnt dramatically reduce ISKCONS stature. Among millions of devoted, elevated souls - to find a few deranged individuals and to report them out is not a disgrace - its honest. So what if someone feels low abt ISKCON because of this section - i would rather someone hate me for who i am than to love me for what i am not. All that ranting apart, i have been to several ISKCON temples around the world and have seen several posters of all the good work that ISKCON is doing - distributing food in ethiopia etc. i think we should have a section on ISKCONs contributions to world society via such programs. I opine that absence of these programs are more demeaning than the presence of the scandals section.

God bless and protect us all with peace, satisfaction, tolerance and happiness. Upparna 09:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Jayaram Uparna 3 Jul 2007

Thank you for your honest advice Upparna. I agree that this part of the movement was not shown in the article, and have since added a summary section in regards to the food distribution with a link to the main Food for Life article. Best Wishes, Gouranga(UK) 08:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Gauranga. Now that i have read the FFL article, I am amazed at the depth and reach of this program ... just HAVE to donate to this cause ! Thanks for expanding my knowledge on this FFL programme. Now that it is there in wiki-iskon , i hope it gets more coverage and thus, more funds etc.Peace.--Jayaram Uparna 06:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides all the lovely back and forth on a simple issue such as the fact that the entry is very lean on presenting 'criticism' and when it attempts to do so, it either immediately runs to defend it or lets it glide into oblivion, there are some gaps in thoroughness. A good example is the line '...and the remaining four were all expelled from the movement by the Governing Body Commission during turbulent times in the 1980s' where is the bit about that? the reader would want to know about that. It points to the fact that what we are reading is not the whole story. A presentation of facts, such as a discussion, no matter how brief, on what happened after the death of the founder, etc. If we write an entry about a political party, would we write about the critical issues that may have render it asunder? no need to go on gossiping or stating unverifiable facts, just letting the reader know the history of the organization. The article is far too apologetic (no, I am not saying that we launch into scandals, but if there is controversy it should be presented for what it is, the article fails to do that (Diabulos (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Headline text

ISKCON Activities

Should there not be a more specific reference to kirtans as they relate to ISKCON -- importance vis a vis Sri Chaitanya, how often, and different types or instruments, and so on? Is the kirtan not an inseparable part of ISKCON daily life?

Also curious as why no mention of George Harrison or the popularity of "My Sweet Lord", as it references the historical growth and cultural penetration of ISKCON, and demonstrates what is meant by Srila Prabhupada's wide rendering of Sankirtan. Article also seems light on referencing use of public open-house meals and summer festivals.

Would think it not accurate to say they have "restaurants" without specifying the serving of prasadam, or else at the very least say "vegetarian restaurants" so it doesn't read like they own a few BurgerKings.

If no objections or changes made I'll fix a couple of these tomorrow Joevanisland 23:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Any edits and content you can bring to the article are appreciated. "My Sweet Lord" is mentioned in the article "Hare Krishna in Popular Culture". Chopper Dave 23:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
See also Sankirtan, which is linked in the current article, but maybe not prominently enough? Ys, Gouranga(UK) 08:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem to me is that the article doesn't seem to inform as to what ISKCON entails to those within it. In other words, the impression I get from this article is not synonomous with the impression I get from observing or experiencing devotees and ISKCON temples, thus it seems ... incomplete. You have history, philosophy, and scandal, but no section in your Contents for activities outside of preaching activities. Or better put, you seem to me to have written about ISKCON more vis a vis belief than practice. I would think (and forgive me for the unavoidable problem that many of you may find it offensive for a non-devotee to "sum-up" your dear Prabhu), having known devotees and been in ISKCON temples, that the nature of Srila Prabhupada's example and message is vaishnavism as practice, not philosophical talk. Is my view here incorrect?

Further, the Sankirtan link is fine for evangelical Sankirtan, but not the overall idea to an outsider of the importance of singing and music to ISKCON. Such would allow a better distinction between ISKCON and other more private activity based practices, such as some Buddhist or Hindu methods of meditation and so on. Perhaps I am mistaken and kirtans are not or are no longer part of daily ISKCON life separate from evangelical activities. It simply always seemed to me that kirtan in all it's forms allows for one to see ISKCON as not sharing other religions' focus on self(ish)-enlightenment but on glorifying God for others to hear, including for oneself to hear. I realize I may be failing to explain myself in this space. I realize also that most of this is solved by the Vaishnav articles, so some of this is discardable as nothing more than my personal idea that ISKCON should have a contained explanation of it's own practices on the idea that it is a specific english language movement not always accurately defined merely through links to general and historical vaisnavism articles.

Lastly, how does one help with an article such as this? How would someone like me write a sentence on prasadam? By virtue of NPOV and being a non-devotee, I would have to write things like believed to be influenced by the person preparing, and so on. Will this cause objections? This must be difficult for devotees, as it must feel sacrilidge for you to write lines that do not state such things as fact. If I can provide any service as to getting around this problem, advise me further and I shall help all I can. Joevanisland 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hare Krishna. I suggest you write a practices section on a sandbox page (eg. here ) and GourangaUK and I can help work on it and edit it to a NPOV section. Let me know when you start and we'll jump in :) Chopper Dave 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Forgive my poor explanation then, as my own perspective is not that of a devotee and would be (hopefully) NPOV from the start. I'm more trying to grasp how articles come about when the need for NPOV seems to be offensive to the people/position being explained and would thus seemingly trigger objections. Perhaps I've met too many devotees! I can't help but feel guilty describing things such as prasadam and reincarnation as simply theories, even if I personally believed them to be so! It's more a problem with who am I to write about ISKCON. In truth, I'd be happy if the section "Preaching activities" was renamed simply "Activities", with the current preaching info plus a little bit more about devotee life. I'll try something in sandbox as soon as I can. Joevanisland 21:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Joe, Wikipedia is based upon the ideal of encyclopedic, informed, neutrality in it's articles. Any additions should be written with this in mind, with objections/debates being beaten out via consensus on the discussion pages. Best Wishes with your edits, Gouranga(UK) 11:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

ISKONISKCON: Followers of the Vedas?

Ok, I know that Swami Prabhupada translated the Vedas and other legendary Hindu scriptures. But does ISKON actually perform rituals in the vedic scriptures ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ne0Freedom (talk • contribs) 22:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The focus within Gaudiya Vaishnavism (including ISKCON) is on the teachings of Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavata Purana and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. As a tradition it is more closely connected with the Puranic texts, and some of the Upanishads, rather than the three Vedas. Still, I suspect that there are some rituals that could potentially be connected to the rituals in the Vedas - at least in some form, or which are taken directly from them directly. The fire sacrifice during initiation and deity installation is the one that first springs to mind. Would have to find a GV priest who performs temple rituals and know the background behind them. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
ISKCON is based on the essential Vedic message - matras given in diksa include Rg Veda's himn and the main chant is Upanisadic maha-mantra. Thus Vedaantic roots of the movement are hard to ignore. Number of rituals are performed, such as angihotras, but majority of the rituals are based on the Vaisnava Pancaratra system.Wikidās 21:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Non-sectarian in its ideals"

Why is a statement from ISKCON own source given as a fact? 217.198.224.13 10:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Because it shows that ISKCON is non-sectarian in it's ideals. To what extent it does or doesn't meet it's own ideals is a totally different question, but the source clearly illustrates this as an ideal of the organisation. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 10:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
But nevertheless, ISKCON's ideology clearly puts it under the Gaudiya Vaishnava sect and it promotes bhakti yoga so I don't get what it means by being non-sectarian.Domsta333 (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
According to ISKCON it does not promote a particular sect, but adds.Wikidas© 03:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The iskcon faith can be considered an "original" work by wikipedia standards as Hinduism already has an established collection of authentic books. remove iskcon from wikipedia hindu references as per wikipedia standards please and also other faiths claiming to be hindu faiths . please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.129.133 (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Rath Yatra Controversy

ISKCON arranges Rath Yatras in India and around the world at different times. These Rath yatras were objected by the Jagganath temple of Puri as being against tradition. [5] Adding a note of the issue in img cap.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have heard the story, which to me sounds largely political, and wouldn't see it as being noteworthy enough to add into the article. Ratha Yatra's have been happening around the world since the late 1960's. Think why are people objecting suddenly? Jagganatha is free to go where and when He chooses. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
IMO, this should be added as per NPOV. Giving a sense of the criticism faced by ISKCON (which can be regarded new Vaishanavism) by the old guard.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that NPOV really comes into it. It's a story created for political purposes. By adding it here we are simply letting Wikipedia be used as a political soapbox. The history is that the Jagganath temple doesn't allow Hindus into the temple of non-Indian origin, or who are not from traditional Hindu families. It has had this rule for hundreds of years. One of the founder acharyas of the Gaudiya tradition known as Haridas Thakur (from 1400's) is one such example. Gaudiya Vaishnavas who were born originally in Muslim families, or from outside of Hinduism have in the past, largely tolerated this and got on with things (at least I don't know of any past protests). In recent years a lot of members of ISKCON when visiting Jagannath Puri for pilgrimage have felt it wrong that pilgrims who are racially African, Caucasian, or Chinese etc... are not allowed entry to the temple, even though they are practising Hindus. I don't know all the details, but especially in December last year, a number of articles appeared in the Indian press which were critical of this no-entry to foreigners rule. Now, shortly afterwards suddenly some members of the Jagannath temple are creating news stories which are critical of ISKCON. Does this not sound like a strange coincidence? The simple facts are that the members of the Jagannath temple have the responsibility to decide who is permitted into the temple and who isn't, and members of ISKCON have the responsibility to decide when they have their festivals. In my humble opinion this whole tit-for-tat scenario has no place in Wikipedia. Sincere regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry to say this but the reasoning above is WP:OR. If Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has a criticism section. An article devoted to criticism of Hinduism. Why can't this article ISKCON have the section? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
This article includes plenty of criticisms (see: internal problems & controversy), but the above is a story being distributed for political reasons. How is it WP:OR for me to say that on a talk page? I really don't see it being notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I think. Lets wait for somebody else' comments rather I and you (GourangaUK) having a fight. I still think atleast a 1-liner be added in controversy then. The Internal problems and controversy does not discuss view of organisation by other Vaishanava or HIndu outfits.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Given that the Jagganath temple is not funded by ISKCON and **its** rules and policies of not allowing non-hindus to enter the temple is much much older than ISKCON iteself, what is your (ISKCON's) basis for demanding that they open their doors to ISKCON members? Desione (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
There are many organizations (such as Jagganath temple) who restrict their membership and the right of private organizations to restrict membership has been well recognized in modern legal courts throughout the world. So again, what basis does ISKCON has in demanding that Jagganth temple open its doors more than it has Desione (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Desione, your above comments are innapropriate and off-topic. The question is in regards to the notability of the story for inclusion in this article. This talk page is not for people to air their own personal views or have a general debate. As I stated above "members of the Jagannath temple have the responsibility to decide who is permitted into the temple and who isn't". Who are you arguing with? Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 12:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
GourangaUK, I probably didn't phrase is right. What I was saying was that the event is not only notable but should be fully discussed. What needs to be discussed here is basis on which an organization (ISKCON) that does not even consider itself Hindu (or not sure if it is Hindu) is demanding that Jagganth temple allow entry to its members. Jagganath temple has full legal basis for denying entry to anyone it pleases. Do you see why this event is very notable and should be discussed at length? Thank you. Desione (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
GourangaUK, I waited for a third party to comment. Desione supporting the inclusion, readded Referenced material about the controversy. The controversy reflects IMO the view of other Vaishanava (Hindu) organisations towards ISKCON.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
If it's 'referenced' material about a controversy, stick it in the controversy section, not in an image caption. Personally I feel this controversy is of little significance and disappear overnight, not worth mentioning in the article Chopper Dave (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
With all respect, Desione's opinion is hardly neutral - and the above comments are again an attempt to become involved in a general argument, which is not the proper use of a talk page (see WP:TALK). Especially considering the current debate we are both involved in on the Hinduism talk page, I can hardly take that as a concensus. I'm not convinced that NDTV is a reliable source, and as Chopper Dave has stated, even if we do include the information, it should be in the controversy section, not within the image caption. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
GourangaUK, I don't have an intention to argue out with you on this at length. But since you question my neurality allow me to respond. Common sense (as opposed to bias or neutrality) dictates that the basis on which a self-proclaimed non-hindu organization disrespected and agitated against one of the most well respected Hindu institutions (which has acted well within its rights) should be discussed in detail in the ISKCON article. As per common sense (as opposed to bias or neutrality), this is an unusual act not just in the scope of Hinduism but in scope of any religious institution. Thank you Desione (talk) 03:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Adding in controversy as per DAve. Though the online link to the incident on The Times of India website seems to dead (TOI had publishd the story in the newspaper), i found this [6] which says "Earlier last week, the priests had criticised ISKCON for holding "untimely" Rath Yatra".--Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Redtiger, the TOI link is better, and the way you had written it out makes more sense now within the article. I have made some changes to the general wording and added some additional links on the subject. It is something that was building up in 2007. My view is still that it is too small affair to make much notice of, but if it has caused a stir within India then I understand your point. Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I just made some minor modifications, removed racial/foreign references (both from Jagganth temple and ISKCON) and added Jaganth temple POV. Desione (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the controversy will go away in time (if something similar doesn't happen next year). However, from what I have seen it has been building up for years. Desione (talk) 08:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Desione, I have reverted your changes on the grounds of WP:OR. It is not so simple to say that ISKCON is not a Hindu organisation, nor is that the reason why ISKCON members were not let into the temple. Members of ISKCON of Indian parentage have been allowed access for many years. It has only ever been people of non-Indian parentage that were not allowed. When they say 'No-Hindus allowed' it incorporates the belief that in order to be Hindu, you have to be of Indian stock. Have you ever visited the temple with non-Indian pilgrims? I have. This is how it works. I havn't got any particular problem with it, but we shouldn't change the facts.[7] Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources for ISKCON related articles

  • I have added some ISKCON related websites to the reliable sources notice board at Reliable sources for ISKCON related articles. Please feel free to post any reference you are considering using for ISKCON related articles and biographies. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that a reference to the entire Direction of Management is appropriate rather than just the sections that are currently being followed.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuttamadasi (talk • contribs) 19:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are discussed and presented on WP:RSN. Most of websites and all blogs are not Reliable. I have not seen a single good reliable source for DOM in a decent secondary source. Stop adding references to blogs and websites that are unreliable. See Google books and Scholar: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Wikidās ॐ 19:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

ISKCON work group

Changes to wording

I have reverted some changes today based on the following logic:

  1. It is better to use the word belief where a belief is being mentioned, rather than describe it as an 'understanding', it's just more straightforward.
  2. Linking the same word a number of times within the same article is discouraged in Wikipedia, and so I have removed duplicate links. I have also removed links which come back again to this article, either directly, or through another disambiguation page (i.e Maha-mantra).
  3. The term Gauda in Gaudiya Vaishnavism specifically refers to where the branch of Gaudiya Vaishnavism began, or was first recognised, and thus mentioned other places such as Rajastan in the sentence complicates the meaning. The reference to Mathura, obviously includes Vrindavan.
  4. 'Disseminated' sounds like more of a medical term. Whereas, at least to me, 'popularized' sounds more straightforward.
  5. Details of the Maha-mantra's connection with the Kali-Santarana Upanishad are given in the main article.

Hope this clarifies my edits. Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 23:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One should not use word that means: A religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof - to the the concepts that have huge logical, sastrical, historical and practical support. Please refer to any rules to the referencing a number of times. Please refer to WP:CITET. Prabhupada did not "cater to popular taste to make popular and present to the general public" anything. His presentation and way of spreading was different, while some of his followers, to whom you may belong, may not appreciate it. Please re-examine. Wikidas (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Dear Wikidas, please could you describe exactly what you meant to say in that last statement? It is against WP:NPOV to describe a belief as an understanding. We need to discuss changes fully before going any further. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Verifiable information should not be called a belief. If Caitanya Vaisnavas say 'it does not depend on belief' it falls within verif source. I agree with you that changes needs to be discussed before just undoing 20 edits by other editor. Lets make some sense here. Wikidās 02:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Dear Wikidas,

I attempted to begin a discussion, but you appeared to ignore the above points? In your recent edits you have, amongst some good edits I must add, also :

  1. Added a reference to back up an argument that ISKCON's philosophy goes back to the time of the Greeks. - This is clearly original research, and too much of a point of view statement to include in the introduction. To say that ISKCON follows the philosophy of Gaudiya Vaishnavism is surely detail enough for the introductory paragraph?
  2. Removed words such as "belief" because you seem to believe that use of such words to describe a religious movement is out of place? Please note that we need to write from a neutral perspective as much as possible. To describe a religious belief as a religious belief is plain common-sense.
  3. Replaced the link to Mathura (which includes Vrindavan) as pointed out already above.
  4. Added links to the words ISKCON and Maha Mantra, one of which re-directs to this article (this is the ISKCON article), the other of which goes to a disambiguation page, from where you would then have to go to the Hare Krishna article, which is already linked. Therefore neither of these links is required.
  5. Added a point of view that ISKCON was evangelistic. No, it is still an evangelistic movement. It actively seeks converts. This is a fact. The extent of outreach preaching within the movement is another issue. It is incorrect to say that ISKCON only was evangelistic. It's a point of view.
  6. Added citations, some of which are very useful, granted, one of which (i.e the first one) seems out of place, or a more suitable reference could be used?

As much as I appreciate your beneficial changes and agree with keeping some of the recent citations I will have to revert the other changes. Unless you can explain good reasons for the above? As a general note, I have found it is often very helpful to discuss things on the talk page before making several changes of this type to articles which involve a lot of general activity.

Best Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 

Re: GourangaUK points 1-6

If you narrow your point to the above 6 points I think we can arrive to an agreement. It however requires some consideration.

  1. Introduction allows to a (not very well ref.) statement that some consider ISKCON to be NRM. The point has to be addressed in the introduction itself with sufficient refs. Monotheistic Vaisnavism existed and is recorded from pre-christian era. That is an important consideration. Just locating a particular sect to a particular place "Gauda" is a weak point and does not sufficently address the issue of it being a NRM or a sect. In fact the purpose of ISKCON and presentation should be different and that is not POV statement. I do think that references to initial (not so sucessful) attempts to spread Vaisnava monotheism and the same specific message are needed in introduction.
  2. I will propose a neutral wording that may satisfy your dislike of the wording and at the same time will not stress subjectivity of belief.
  3. I agree that places that you suggest can be listed and do not object exclusion of Rajastan, However its true that Rajastan (that is part of Vrajamandal) is clearly not Mathura and is currently in a different state:-) So maybe worth considering..
  4. Links ISKCON should be removed. However some detail reference to the Upanisadic background of the mahamantra seems to be essential.
  5. Its important to understand the dynamics of ISKCON today when its preaching strategies are presented. There is no reason to pain 1980s picture that does not reflect the reality. Its clearly not as evangelistic as it was and more community oriented. I will propose a re-wording for your consideration. Please let me know what you will consider reasonable. It will require a NPOV review.
  6. I will work on a better reference to replace the first one. If you find any let me know.

Wikidās 21:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wikidas, in regards to point 1, I don't think this article is the place to discuss the ancient origins of Vaishnavism. I've often read scholars making the point that in a general comparison to Gaudiya Traditions in India "the only really new thing about ISKCON was its move to the west". Maybe that could be a useful way forward? In Hinduism by Ian Jamison, 2006 (ISBN 1-84489-420-7), he writes on p177: "It is only ISKCON's activity in the West that is 'new'". I've heard that said in another book which assessed which movements were suspected as being cults or not. I forget the lady author's name?
In regards to point 4, I wonder if an accurate assessment of ISKCONs current global preaching strategies is a bit out of scope for this article. We can say for sure that most temples have historically focused on sankirtan and harinama as forms of preaching, and this is also what is stressed in most of Prabhupada's literature. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Category:Vaishnavism is an important category and should not be removed Wikidās ॐ 07:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ISKCON is already a sub-category of Vaishnavism [in Wikipedia], and thus the article should not be in both categories.--Editor2020 (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It should then be in Vaisnavism. It makes not sense to put ISKCON in the category ISKCON for navigational reasons. Wikidās ॐ 17:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It is in Vaishnavism, that's what I just said. You can't seriously be saying that the article "ISKCON" should not be in the category "ISKCON", so I am going to assume a breakdown in communication.

We are discussing two different things, articles and categories. The article ISKCON goes in the Category ISKCON. The category ISKCON is a Sub-category of the Category Vaishnavism.--Editor2020 (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed and added appropriate cats. To compensate for the fact that ISKCON is labeled as a separate denomination different from Vaisnavism. There should be discussion on it. I will add it to Vaisnavism Project page. Wikidās ॐ 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you discuss categories you want to remove here: - Category:Krishnology appears to be quite on topic. Also Category:Bhakti movement]] Category:Hindu traditions]] You can be more consistent and since you kept Bhakti movement]] first time around keep it again. Why do you think that Hindu traditions is not a right category? Wikidās ॐ 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent move

Three references where moved from LEAD to section on internal problems,[8] I wonder how come external criticism belongs to internal problems of the group ?--talk-to-me! (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong to the lead of the article.Gaura79 (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The lead section acts as abstract of the article, and more often then not, it consists of both views, one advocating the group, other negating the group, only statement that I added was ISKCON has been a subject matter of discussion with anti-cult movements, and three references were provided, now why was that removed from the lead ? What is the understanding of lead section (introduction part) ? Kindly explain if my addition is wrong!.--talk-to-me! (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


Regrading this revert [9], waiting for your input. :)--talk-to-me! (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Your references were not academic and POV type. It is balanced and placed in the appropriate section of the article, that deals with problems, of which anticult is not the most important one (unless you screen name is Cult free world). Wikidās ॐ 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
How do you propose to incorporate the other half, in the lead section, to complete the picture ? If you refer the Anti-cult_movement page, you will find Stevan Hassan there, hence it is not a POV type, I linked it, you removed it.--talk-to-me! (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sure that there is hardly any place for it in the lead. Its just a few words and there is no controversy about it, its a fact of life. If it was a current problem, maybe it would come into lead, but since its not current, 20-25 years old, there is hardly any need to have in the lead. If you get a consensus of other editors on putting it in the lead, I can not see it as a problem, but at present it should stay where it is. Regards. Wikidās ॐ 13:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
As i am busy with some other stuff, i request to hold this discussion for sometime, once free, will return back !--talk-to-me! (talk) 10:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult free world add biased sources

User:Cult free world add very biased sources, no meet WP:Verfiability and WP:Reliability. Rick Ross is anti-cult activist -- not neutral source. Freedomofmind is blog, anti-cult POV. CESNUR site no say is cult, say is sect, and say yoga is sect too. Did User:Cult free world read article? User:Cult free world do original research. Please give 3rd party sources. No add bad sources. Thank you very much. 123.242.230.164 (talk) 16:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas and Gaura79, sorry if change referecnes. Please fix. sorry. 123.242.230.164 (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree that that sources should meet WP policy. Please see WP:CITE for info and links to other policies. The statements themself are fair and there are sources to support it.Wikidās ॐ 17:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


Stevan hassan (freedom of mind) and rick-ross institute, both are considered experts for cults. An encyclopedia article should contain information from all quarters about the subject. It can be discussed further, just that i noticed that article was missing these critical (important) section, which should be incorporated in the article, how and where, we can discuss that. Article needs some help for sure. :) --talk-to-me! (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
No, these men no cult experts. They anticult activists. This their purpose. You need professors or universitys as neutral sources. Thank you very much for listening. 123.242.230.164 (talk) 20:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I disagree with that, since all opposition against a religious movement could be reinterpreted as anti-cult. I think that it is necessary to allow some of the "activism" that can be interpreted as anticult, if the arguments they present can be supported by other sources. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 16:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

While they are controversial, they are also considered leaders and in the field and they are used as citations all over wikipedia.

Anyway they aren't being cited as experts. All the text says is that ISKON has been discussed within the anti-cult movement. Here are two examples.

Reverting the removal of the text. Sethie (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please note that original references were added by Cult_free_world who has history of similar actions [10]. NPOV should be addressed in this case by providing alternative readings.


Wikidās ॐ, this is very common with cult member's, that case of SSP, is not isolated one, here is another such case [11]. It happens, but as far as ISKCON is concerned, its more spiritual, hence does not lead to that path, which Sahaja Yoga[12], or Sahaja Marg [13] lead to, we can work together with this article, keeping in view the WP:NPA policy. :) is it possible here.. I hope so..--talk-to-me! (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
No, sources no good, not 3rd party, from selfwebsites. Sentence okay, just no good sources. Find good sources. Thank you very much. Agree with Gaura79 no lead (WP:UNDUE), but here good. 67.167.134.79 (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The sources are fine. The lead is another question. Sethie (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Indian Scriptures

The oldest scriptures of Classic Indian Culture are the four (or three) Vedas, the oldest of them being the Rg-Veda the oldest core of which is generally dated to some time not before 1800 BC. The Bhagavad Gita is included in one of the two great epics of India, the Mahabharata which is generally dated to the time from 200 BC onwards, the Bhagavatapurana to the 10th century AD. None of the scriptures mentioned in the first part of the article are - considered even the most generous datings - older than 2,500 years.

(cf. Encyclopedia of Hinduism, C.A. Jones, J.D Ryan - Facts on File inc. 

Dictionary of Indology, A.K. Roy, N.N Gidwani - Oxford & IBH Publishing
Wikipedia Article)

Akimboa23 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this article, I feel the above comment raises a valid question: The first section of the article reads, "While some classified it as a new religious movement, its core philosophy is based on traditional Hindu scriptures such as the Śrīmad Bhāgavatam and the Bhagavad-gītā, both of which date back more than 5,200 years." According to its Wikipedia entry, the Bhagavad-gītā is 2 or 3 thousand years old. So how does the "5,200 years" figure apply? Macduff (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Garbled discourse

This sequence of sentences in the section Issues within the society does not make sense

1. ISKCON has been subject matter of discussion in some anti-cult movements.[53][54][55]

(OK, good so far)

2. The ISKCON was described by academics as "the most genuinely Hindu of all the many Indian movements in the West",[56]

Eeeh! What is the discourse here? Does "the most genuinely Hindu" imply the interest of "some anti-cult movements"? If then, how? Worst interpretation first: Is the essence of "the most genuinely Hindu" the same as "cultic" per western thinking, or better: does "the most genuinely Hindu" evoke the fear of the presumedly irrational anti-cult movements? Or second (and most benevolent) interpretation does the "the most genuinely Hindu" disprove that ISKCON is "cultic", then the question is a giant How?!

3. and as to its fortieth anniversary in America, as "having being successful on the basis of longevity", having "undergone changes to its goals and identity".[57]

Is this some kind of advert admission that: "OK, then, it was cultic, but isn't anymore"? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 17:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've surfed around and can answer by myself: the sentence is very biased an formulated to prove a certain view, namely:
'ISKCON has been subject matter of discussion in some anti-cult movements.
true, f.ex. Rick A. Ross and that cite claims that Prabhupada claimed that ISKCON is not Hinduism, so
The ISKCON was described by academics as "the most genuinely Hindu of all the many Indian movements in the West",[56]
I'm going to ignore some opinions above, insert a sentence with Rick Ross in order to explain the formulation "the most genuinely Hindu". ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I think you are confused about the fact that image of the movement as well as Hindu faith changes with time. From 1990s Hinduism is very open to conversions and ISKCON is part of the general cultural stream. Are you arguing with a direct quote? Wikidās ॐ 19:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a serious issue with neutrality. I knew nothing of ISKCON before reading this article, but it is clear that all objective statements have been drowned out by believers. The cult criticism (as mentioned above) is clear example of this. The discussion page, likewise, constantly devolves into a discussion of tenants of the religion. I have nothing against the faith. I would just like some bias to be curtailed in the interest of factual discussion. It is clear the primary authors and editors are not disinterested parties. Grant (bork²) 4:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.110.139.53 (talk)

Inclusion of the July 9th letter and Direction of Management

This article needs to be factually written. Saying that the Direction of Management was a "letter" when in fact it is legal witnessed document is untrue. In addition quoting the parts that are being followed and then deleting any reference to the parts that are currently being ignored by the GBC is untruthful.

Regarding Srila Prabhupada's appointment of the "eleven", the July 9th letter clearly names them as "ritviks." That is truthful. After his passing the eleven became "Zonal Acaryas" by appointing themselves to that post. That is truthful.

Anuttamadasi (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


Srila Prabhupada created the DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT, which was signed, witnessed and notarized. This document created the GBC, and gave the EXACT DIRECTION AS TO HOW THE GBC SHOULD ACT ...Importanly, the GBC was to be ELECTED FROM THE BODY OF TEMPLE PRESIDENTS. The Temple presidents were instructed to hold elections every three years, and either re-elect existing GBC members, or elect new ones from a ballot of candidates chosen from the body of Temple Presidents.

Srila Prabhupada also wrote several letters stating that the temple presidents were to be elected by vote by the congregations of the individual temples, and that the GBC would have practically no AUTHORITY over the individual temples.

The devotees who live in ISKCON temples should be educated so that they understand the full extent of their constitutional powers. By the constitution of the ISKCON temple corporations, the members have the legal right to elect a new leadership. This is a little-known fact, but it is a law.

They also have the right to vote to impeach that leadership if they lose their qualification as leaders. Legally, they have voted to accept the appointed leaders by failing to vote them out. That is, unless the members assert their right to vote it is assumed they wish to follow the appointed system.

Because the GBC assumed dictatorial powers NOT PROVIDED in the DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT, they were in a position to "cover up" crimes committed by each other, and to terrorize the temple presidents by threatening to "kick them out" for insubordination. Since they were not authorized to do either of the above, we can see that their pattern of abuse followed the typical pattern of abuse in "rogue states" and other dictatorships and oligarchies that ARE NOT ANSWERABLE TO THE PUBLIC. It would have been almost impossible for the molestations of the children in the Gurukulas to have taken place if Srila Prabhupada's DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT had been followed.

The only thing that can be said in our (congregational member's) favour is that the GBC VERY CAREFULLY HID THE TEXT OF THE DIRECTION OF MANAGEMENT UNTIL THE 1990'S. (Over twenty years!) So that NO CONGREGATIONAL MEMBER OF ISKCON REALIZED TO WHAT DEGREE THEY WERE (AND SITLL ARE) BEING RIPPED OFF!

The devotees should assert their rights under the law, at least in the United States, and immediately hold elections to force the GBC to resign as managers and trustees of all ISKCON properties. This is the only chance to save Srila Prabhupada's legacy from total destruction. If after the prosecution and defense presentations in the court, where all the details of the GBCs' intransigence will become public knowledge, the jury finds the defendants culpable, and if they did not resign when the case first began, this arrogant attitude will influence the judge and jury to increase the penalty.

Urdhvaga das —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.116.175.87 (talk) 00:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

This is not your blog site. Read WP:ENCYC, use WP:RS do not spam this talk page or the pages of Wiki with your links. Disruption to Wikipedia is a serious problem. WP:DISRUPT. Wikidās ॐ 11:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
On the contrary, your mantric recitation of WP policies irrelevant to this comment in an attempt to push your own POV and silence this balanced critique shows your cult-promoting agenda. The comment to which you responded seems to me by far the most informative on this page. Enon (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikidas is entirely correct in stating, regardless of the views given in that comment, that it does not belong on the talk page. The comment was a polemic, discussing the issue in general, NOT a suggestion for sourced additions or changed to the article. The Talk page is NOT an open forum for discussing the topic...it is only for discussing referenced changes to the article. ONe's personal opinion or view is irrelevant. The comment mentions no sources, nor specific changes, it is, for all I can tell, a rant about the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) 23:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Krishnaism vs Hinduism in ISKCON

I invite editors to formulate a statement of consensus on the position of Hinduism in relation to ISKCON. At one occasion the founder said it was not Hinduism but Krishnaism. On the other hand there are prominent scholars who define Hinduism differently. Flood, G. "Hare Krishna: Hinduism, Vaisnavism, and ISKCON: Authentic Traditions or Scholarly Constructions?". www.icsahome.com. Retrieved 2009-04-20.. Your views are welcomed backed by reliable sources that not biased. Do not just pile up primary sources here, it has to be WP:SECONDARY or at least from a Tertiary source. It appears the most acceptable to all definition of Hinduism is Sanatan Dharma, it appears ISKCON supports this definition. ( "Hinduism". www.iskcon.org.uk.), ("ISKCON Scholar Greets Pope on Behalf Of US Hindus". news.iskcon.com.). I suggest the above links are added to the links section of the article. Wikidās ॐ 09:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The first thing that comes to mind, personally, is that the founder's opinions were those of a source who would not necessarily be considered reliable. In cases like these, it is the opinion of neutral outsiders which take priority. Prabhupada seems to have himself, based on what I remember, had a dim opinion of those he called "Hindus" and might have wanted to dissociate himself from them simply because of that opinion. Also, it I think is not unreasonable to think that "Krishnaism", which so far as I can tell from the above quote wasn't defined in terms of usage, might be what we think of as a more specific term for a group within that field, perhaps similar to "Roman Catholicism" and "Christianity". While the RC fall within the larger group "Christianity", they are separate enough that some might want to use the more specific term as an identifier.
For the larger issues of how to structure the content, I would think maybe filing an RfC and additionally leaving messages on the talk pages of the various relevant national, topical, and other projects, like Hinduism, India, Religion, and the like might be the best way to go. No objections to adding the links as proposed above. John Carter (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
This is more like saying if someone starts an organization called Jesus-ism, it shouldn't be confused with Christrianity -- of course, Krishna is a primary figure in Hindu Religions and any -ism related to it will automatically fall under Hinduism.chughtai (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't Hinduism teach that one has to be born a Hindu? How do ISKCON converts square this with their beliefs? Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
There have been "converts" to Hinduism since as far back as the Classical Era. (Ex. See Heliodorus pillar.) It's primarily Christians that have spread that nonsense, in order to dissuade non-"born"-Hindus from "converting". That some Indians have bought this lie does not make it any less of a propaganda myth. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is good discussion, I think the same would apply to swaminarayan, sai baba, etc. All new "sects" that claim Hindu scriptures in their belief system but otherwise do not propagate Hindu values. Arya Samaj and other groups have tried previously to rid Hinduism of these practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.72.45 (talk) 06:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move to ISKCON

International Society for Krishna Consciousness is better known as ISKCON in abbreviation. It is more popular and common name thus proposed a move, unless serious objection is mounted. Wikidas© 19:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

ISKCON is the better known name. Support move.--Redtigerxyz Talk 04:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
What evidence is there that one name is more popular than another? In this type topic, I don't know that Google is the best gauge.   Will Beback  talk  05:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
International Society for Krishna Consciousness temples are better known as simply ISKCON temples. The Times of India newspaper uses ISKCON repeatedly here, while gives the full form once. In this article simply ISKCON is used.--Redtigerxyz Talk 07:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the Times of India uses "Iskcon" in one of the articles, which I don't think anyone is proposing to use here. Is our sole evidence for the predominance of one term over another two articles from the same newspaper?   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Certainly ISKCON is the proper name. It is also used for a number of existing categories. In fact the redirect is measured much more then any other redirect normally measure. In other words it is ISKCON that is the most popular and used spelling for the organization. Wikidas© 22:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Evidence?   Will Beback  talk  22:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  • 'Keep where it is per International Society for Krishna Consciousness' web site. The other term they use there is Iskcon.com. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Color me surprised - in the 'what do other encyclopedias call it' search there is "Hare Krishna (religious sect)" in Encyclopedia Britannica,[14] and just "Hare Krishna" in Encarta.[15] A Google news search for "Hare Krishna" finds countless uses of the word referring to a "Hare Krishna temple" or a "Hare Krishna restaurant", etc., along with the use of the phrase as a chant/mantra. I'm not proposing that name, in fact I disagree with it, but just saying. As someone who is not a big fan of acronyms and abbreviations, I'm in favor of the current name, but that's just an uninformed personal opinion. Priyanath talk 04:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, in reverting the move I called it "undiscussed", but I see it has indeed been discussed here. I still see nothing in the above that would present a good rationale, let alone a consensus, for the move. It is undisputed that ISKCON is popularly known as "the Hare Krishnas", which is why this article has had a disambiguating hatnote pointing to ISKCON for years. --dab (𒁳) 12:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Bhavananda Das

"Bhavananda Das" (or Charles Bacis) redirect here - yet there is no mention of him. Maybe there should be something under 'controversy'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.210.235 (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

you are right. the article was redirected in May 2008 following this deletion discussion. But if the redirect is to make any sense, Bhavananda Das will at least need to be briefly mentioned here. --dab (𒁳) 12:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Any relevant sources?Wikidas© 03:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Historical Logo of ISKCON

It is a notable logo, and is actually being used by many centres (British). So called "new logo" did not really take off and is copyrighted/licensed in a way that does not allow reproduction in Wikipedia. So the original historical logo is to be displayed. This is not business directory and there is no need to have the "current" logo displayed. The original logo has some meaning (which newer one does not have it seems) and it was designed by the founder of the organization, which makes it more important, notable and interesting for the purposes of the encyclopedia WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA. It is not a business directory WP:NOT, nor does it have to have the latest logo displayed, thus removal of historical logo shall be treated as disruptive and a vandalism. Wikidas© 21:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think your edits are disruptive. This is not the current logo of ISKCON and we have to accept it whether we like it or not. You can place the historical logo in the History section of the article instead.Gaura79 (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Since "current" logo, that can change at any time, can not be reproduced on wikipedia there is nothing wrong in trying to show a design of the founder acarya and the logo that is based on his instructions. What is disruptive in showing a historical logo? Why do you think it is not appropriate for the Wikipedia? Removing valid content is disruptive [16] and listing AfDs in retaliation to deletion of Paramadvati [17] in a knew-jerk reaction is disruptive [18], [19], [20], [21]. It is upsetting when it is not clear to you, that purposeful removal of valid historical material from the page is disruptive. Wikidas© 13:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't mind if you place the historical logo somewhere else in the article, but the placement suggested by you is misleading. This is not the logo of ISKCON.Gaura79 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
A photo of a young Benito Mussolini or the old one is not misleading, it is not a dating game it is Encyclopedia, it is not the "current" but most important logo that has to be shown. Wikidas© 13:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Response to Third Opinion Request:
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on International Society for Krishna Consciousness/Archive 1 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: There has been substantial debate over the question of whether prior logos of organizations can be used here at all, but there seems to be substantial agreement that if they can be used, the fair-use guidelines do not support the use of a prior logo merely because it is of interest simply as a prior logo. There must be some discussion in the text of the article about the logo (other than a mere mention that the organization had a prior logo, but changed it) or which the logo serves to illustrate in a necessary way. Without such discussion, inclusion fails to satisfy #8 of the non-free content criteria: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." In this case there is no issue or discussion in the text for which the prior logo is a necessary illustration and the logo should not be included in the article (or on this talk page, thus I have removed it).

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Hare Krishna propaganda

This whole article is NPOV propaganda. Issues---even serious crimes---are glossed over. Esoteric cult issues are given fawning attention. Someone besides shaven-headed traveller-annoyers needs to rewrite this.

Not even a single mention that---for decades---the face of Hare Krishna seen by most was a persistently annoying beggar in an airport, pestering people to buy religous tracts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.180.83 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 11 June 2011

Whilst your choice of language may not be very diplomatic, i agree with your broad point. I fully expected there to be a seperate page on the controversies surrounding this organisation and was surprised to find it merely a subsection. I was further surprised to see that most of the critisisms section has been given over to doctrinal issues, and where there is talk of the genuine controversies such as child abuse, brainwashing etc. it is presented very much from the point of view of ISKCON, going more into what the organisation has done to counter these allegations than the allegations themselves.
I noted after going back through some of the edits that there was a section on financial irregularities which was removed from the article apparently with no discussion as to why? And why does it include "The ISKCON was described by academics[vague] as "the most genuinely Hindu of all the many Indian movements in the West"" if not for defensive reasons?
Given the notoriety of this organisation and the publicity it has recieved, i am amazed that there is so little regarding these issues. Mankrik (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I changed the vague "academics" to the Klostermaier source only. Pyrlights (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


Sanitized and only getting worse. This "article" is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.135.125.153 (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Verification failed

Under the heading 'Influential leaders since 1977': the sentence regarding Ramesvara, Bhagavan das and Harikesa: none of these three are mentioned in the reference supplied. No mention is made of expulsion of members by the GBC. This is an article about the GBC and various controversies within ISKCON, and it may well be worthwhile to include in this article somewhere, but it does not belong at the end of that sentence, and that sentence is otherwise unsourced and contentious. Elizium23 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Request Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

International Society for Krishna Consciousness → Hare Krishna movement – I don't want to be acussed of WP:OR here, but I'm pretty confident that very few people refer to these folks as the "International Society for Krishna Consciousness". I think there's a pretty strong WP:COMMONNAME argument here to have this page moved. NickCT (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This is primarily about the organisation, isn't it? Not the general socio-religious phenomenon or movement. If there is a need for a separate article on that, let one be made – just as there are separate articles for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (an organisation) and Mormons (a socio-religious phenomenon or movement). NoeticaTea? 21:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
But we already have an article on "the general socio-religious phenomenon or movement".Gaura79 (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Fine. All the more reason to stick with this present title, which has to do with the organisation, not that movement. ☺ NoeticaTea? 03:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
In 99 % of the RS the term "Hare Krishna movement" is used to designate The International Society for Krishna Consciousness, not Gaudiya Vaishnavism. So your comparison of ISKCON with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (an organisation) and the Hare Krishna movement with Mormons (a socio-religious phenomenon or movement) is not valid. Gaura79 (talk) 09:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you suppose that people referring to Mormons are not 99% of the time intending to refer to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? If so, why are you supposing it? Anyway, even if what you say is true ("in 99 % of the RS the term 'Hare Krishna movement' is used to designate The International Society for Krishna Consciousness"), that is not evidence that it is the more common name. And anyway, even if it were the more common name for the organisation, that would be only one consideration among several. There is also the matter of the organisation's official name, for example. Finally, I am puzzled by your raising Gaudiya Vaishnavism at all. What point did you want to make by doing that? NoeticaTea? 11:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Please take a look at WP:COMMONNAME

Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.
The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. Other encyclopedias may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register as well as what name is most frequently used.

Gaura79 (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Gaura, I took the liberty of fixing your markup. Now, you are right of course. The official name also is just one consideration among several. An important one. Given the topic of the article, and its own present usage, the official name seems pretty well justified as the title. I note that you choose not to respond, so far, to my remarks about your Google searches, which as they stand are without any utility (see below); but thank you for at least showing what you want by voting (see below also). ☺ NoeticaTea? 03:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
A properly constructed Googlenews search on "Hare Krishna movement" gets just 4 hits. One on "International Society for Krishna Consciousness" gets 7 hits. A properly constructed Googlebooks search, restricted to English-language books of the last twenty years, on "Hare Krishna movement" gets 344 genuine hits (you click through to the last results page to get that). An equivalent search on "International Society for Krishna Consciousness" gets 437 genuine hits. Let's all learn how to do these correctly, for accurate evidence in RMs. NoeticaTea? 03:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are you checking the books for the last 20 years only? ISKCON has been around since 1966. Before 1966 the term "Hare Krishna movement" was not used at all. Properly constructed Gogglebooks search yields following results:

Google News search:

I didn't include search results for "Hare Krishna" because the term is also used to refer to Hare Krishna mantra Gaura79 (talk) 10:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

First, I restricted my searches to the last twenty years because we are interested in current usage, so recent publications are clearly far more relevant than older ones. We get a sufficient sample from recent publications in this case, so there is no need to go further back to survey the less relevant items.
Second, your Google searches are not done properly at all. The figures you report are only Google's estimates: characteristically wild ones, at that. It is necessary to click through to the last results page (as I have already told people, with underlining) for any hope of an accurate count. Try that for your search on Hare Krishna movement, for example, and you get not 13,000 or so, but just 204. (A handy hint: go to "Advanced Search" and set the number of results per page to 100. Shortens the work.) Test what I say, by searching on "Hare Krishna movement was" instead. You get 71 hits. That looks plausible as a subset of 204 for "Hare Krishna movement", but not as a subset of 13,000!
Third, what are you arguing for? I oppose the move. Do you? (More interested in Advaitism, myself. ☺.)
NoeticaTea? 11:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, well look. I think it's been demonstrated that the full exact term "International Society for Krishna Consciousness" (ISKC) might be more common than the full exact term "Hare Krishna movement" (HKM). I still think though that "Hare Krishna" (HK) is a term that gets bandied about regarding these people far more than ISKC. By that reasoning I'd still contend that the title should include HK, if not in HKM then in some other form. NickCT (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move to Hare Krishna movement. Although the full exact term "International Society for Krishna Consciousness" (ISKCON) is the official name of the organization and might be more common than the full exact term "Hare Krishna movement", in academic publications, in the media and in other encyclopedias (see Britannica for example) ISKCON mainly goes by the name "Hare Krishna" or "Hare Krishna movement". Besides, the term "Hare Krishna movement" is not used in RS to designate anything else but this particular religious organization (ISKCON). The name "Hare Krishna movement" is clearly much more recognizable than "International Society for Krishna Consciousness" and if we are to follow WP:COMMONNAME this is the name that should be used.Gaura79 (talk) 15:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: In fact, move it to ISKCON, which is more common. All temples read boldly as ISKCON temples. You will also find same name used on signboards. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
What you say maybe true for India but not for the rest of the world.Gaura79 (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Doubt: What do the signboards elsewhere read? "Hare Krishna movement Temple"? & the article doesnt say this, hence asking... Where is the follow of ISKCON more?? In India or abroad? Follow by number of people. Dont give stats about donations they collect & estate they own to prove which one is main. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose: ISKCON seems more suitable actually. "Hare Krishna movement" is too generic. Lynch7 15:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ovo-vegetarian?

The diet describes a no meat, fish, or eggs. Immediately afterwards it has a link to ovo-vegetarianism (which would include eggs). I'd fix it, but I do not know which of these mutually exclusive items to change. 71.110.67.231 (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article has serious NPOV issues and should be flagged as such.50.133.160.189 (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

True still as if 2018. No mention of rape, murders, pedofilia or worse. Zezen (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Redirect

Can we add a redirect from /wiki/ISCKON

Why HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami redirects to this page? It makes not sense, as he's not even mentioned in the article. There should be a separate article dedicated to him; it should not redirect here. --Iamrcr (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Information about ISKCON's teaching material regarding their views on science

Hello. I'd like to mention that the article misses out a lot of information regarding ISKCON's belief in creationism and their rejection of Darwinian evolution, the Big Bang theory from physical cosmology, and a host of other manifestly pseudo-scientific and incorrect information that is spread through their schooling and education system.

A number of academics have already published about this phenomenon in the larger debate about modern attitudes towards science in Hindu social circles. Material for the same can definitely be procured. I'd like to know your opinions about the same.

P2C2E (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Authorized by whom?

We need to say who has authorized them per "ISKCON is an authorized branch" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Removing the Litigations Section?

Looks like a lot of ISKCON supporters are trying to remove the litigation section under one pretext or the other. Do not try to misrepresent information. Espectially to User:Cinosaur

KatieRoses, I apologize for my delayed response. However, your above remark is unhelpful and borders on violating WP:NPA, WP:HA, and WP:OWN. Please note that your guessing about editors' religious views and alleged biases is particularly unwelcome here or anywhere else on Wiki. As for the litigation section, (1) it's poorly sourced, per MOS on New religious movements; (2) as such, it presents a truncated and slanted views on litigations, thus violating WP:NPOV and WP: UNDUE, and (3) should follow the Internal problems section rather than precede it, both logically and chronologically. I'm also wondering what you sought to achieve by your request for the article's protection here? And yes, please sign your posts. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not see how it is violating any wikipedia policies. Neither is the section poorly sourced. It is much better sourced than the rest of the article, which has NPOV issues, as mentioned on the talk page. Do not edit that section again, if you a have a problem with it, please sign up for dispute resolution. And it does not follow the Internal Problems section, either logically, or chronologically.KatieRoses (talk) 11:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Educational activities and youth

This section is informative, but the tone seems more essay-like than encyclopaedic. I think there's a difference between essay tone and encyclopaedia tone. What do others think? Does the section need some mild reshaping?

Regards to all, Notreallydavid (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Ps. I think the section needs some more references.

No references were added since you posted this, and it is indeed a POV essay more suited to a blog than an encyclopedia, so I've removed it. Little Will (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

suriname - debtie family

In suriname there is a debtie movement. They are similar to Hare Krishna and brhamacharya ( tweede rijweg). To be a follower you have to video tape your family and you have to take on a lot of debt and then you sell your babies to other people for money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.157.227 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

4 regs - allium etc

Hi Arghya1999, I appreciate your efforts to expand the list of prohibited foodstuffs but I think it might be better for clarity to keep this simple, more along the lines of ISKCON's official propaganda. Otherwise we could add gelatine (as in jelly), rennet (in cheese), red lentils (aka masoor dhal), leeks, cochineal (red food dye), edible bone filler in tablets, gelatin again (as in medicinal capsules) – the list goes on and on, if you see my point! So, I hope you don't mind if I revert your edit :-) Samsbanned (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The addition was accurate, and I see no reason why it should be removed. It's true the list cannot be absolutely comprehensive, but the prohibition on onions and garlic is important and should be mentioned, as it indicates that ISKON's dietary requirements are much more stringent than simply ruling out meat and fish. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Accurate? Yes, but out of place here. Who other than a Vaishnava would consider onion and garlic to be a type of meat? Wikipedia should make sense to the general public, don't you agree? For your education, please read any ISKCON (notice the correct spelling - not ISKON) propaganda on the 4 regs. Extraneous items like red lentils, alliums, animal slaughter by-products like rennet and gelatine are never mentioned in the main body of text and are referenced afterwards, in the "fine print". This section is already cluttered up with 'too much information'. Samsbanned (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
A compromise would be reasonable. It should be possible to indicate that eating various vegetables is considered unacceptable without listing each one of them individually. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not see how this can be succinctly stated in the main body of work. I agree that there is more to prasadamarianism than being a vegetarian but how can this be possibly included here without confusing the general public? The addition of "fish or eggs" is simple, yet alludes to further complexity without clutter. I'm not really that fussed, but if you're going to include onion and garlic then you can't leave out red lentils seeing as they were generated from the body of the same cow. Now, can you see the confusion in the eye of the public? This Wikipedia article is not only read by devotees. हरे कृष्ण Samsbanned (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


Confused about accuracy of this article re cult / sect / religion

Hi, I am surprised there isn't more information about if Hare Krishna is considered a religion, sect or cult, showing the arguments either way. I got the impression from sociology class, which was a while ago for me, that there is academic discussion of this matter. Also, in the UK at least, I think it is commonly assumed that Hare Krishna is a cult. I have no particular opinion on that myself, but would like to see a summary of that on this page, as it's not really mentioned much. I came to the page looking for some information about that during a discussion about this issue between friends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.11.86 (talk) 21:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, I think it would be very difficult to cite such a section from neutral sources. The majority of potential sources would be either devoted adherants, or spiteful ex-devotees; neutral discussion of the group is quite rare.
However, I think the article as it stands does answer the question in two ways: 1. It states in the lead that ISKCON is based on Hindu scriptures, and is descended from Vaishnavism, so that implies that it is a sect of Hinduism, and 2. It states in the Problems and Controversies section that it has attracted attention from anti-cult organisations, which is as close to an overt statement of it being a cult as you're likely to find.
Regarding your question itself, I think that labeling any group as a religion OR sect OR cult is difficult. For a start, a sect is only defined in relation to a religion, while a cult is a definition that exists independently of whether something is a religion or not. The right questions would be, "is ISKCON a religion, sect, or neither?" and "is ISKCON a cult?"
ISKCON considers itself a sect, and that's an accurate definition, given how much its belief system is grounded in Hinduism. It does not consider itself a cult, obviously, but from a neutral standpoint it remains difficult to call it. Its belief system by itself lacks a lot of what one would expect to find in a cult (even the chanting is common across most sects of Hinduism, it only appears cult-like in a Western setting), however the actions of its members and certain branches are definitely in line with cult behaviour, so depending on which aspect you are most in contact with, you may judge it either way.
In short, it is neither a cult nor a non-cult, but rather a sect with some aspects of a cult. Wasechun tashunka (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
From a sociological perspective, one can turn to Rodney Stark and William Sims Bainbridge's framework, which distinguishes sect from cult. It defines a sect as a breakaway religious group while a cult is one that is wholly new in the social context. ISKCON could qualify as a cult since it does not fall in the former category but was imported to the U.S. and, therefore, is something wholly new (Hamilton, The Sociology of Religion: Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives, p. 209). This being said, I feel an editor should not make any determination on his own whether a group is a cult or a sect based on any framework. As a rule, we should only indicate what has been written about it by legitimate and objective sources. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

sentence in procreation and marriage section

Within ISKCON, "... men advance spiritually through celibacy and nonattachment; women advance through motherhood and devotion to their husbands in the tradition of stridharma, the wifely duty of submission to the husband and the bearing of sons".[48] Due to this ideology of men needing celibacy in order to be spiritual, sex is something that is not highly discussed within the community. Also, the fact that nonattachment is something that leads to spiritual growth as a man, the men have little attachment for the women in their life. Additionally, men are encouraged to keep women at arms length due to the effect it could have on their gender in their next life.

"Also, the fact that nonattachment is something that leads to spiritual growth as a man, the men have little attachment for the women in their life. " feels redundant- the theme of nonattachment is covered in this section, and the claim that ISKCON men "have little attachment for the women in their life" seems to be maybe what the ideal that men are taught to strive for- but to claim that is how all ISKCON men actually are is an unsubstantiated claim. Hence removed that sentence. Sethie (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

The section on procreation and marriage as of 05/04/19 does not talk at all about procreation and marriage nearly at all now. What happened? The first sentence "Within ISKCON, both men and women can advance spiritually by chanting Hare Krishna, studying the Bhagavad-gita As It Is, the Srimad Bhagavatam, Caitanya-Caritāmṛta, and other Vaisnava literature and rendering devotional service to the spiritual master and Krishna. " is not about procreation or marriage. The last sentence "ISKCON has experienced a number of significant internal problems, the majority of which occurred from the late seventies onwards, and especially within the decade following Prabhupada's death.[53] ISKCON has also been scrutinised by some anti-cult movements.[54][55][56]" is totally irrelevant. Cdiesh (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hinduism

I recently had to restore the statement that ISKCON is a Hindu movement to the lead of this article. It had been removed on the grounds that, "A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami stated many times that Krishna consciousness is not Hindu". Here are two references that discuss the issue and show that while Prabhupada did try to distinguish between ISKCON and Hinduism, ISKCON later identified itself as a Hindu movement, and adherents who insist otherwise are a minority:

Technically you are both correct and incorrect. Both of those statements are true: Iskcon as instituted by Śrīla Prabhupāda was not Hindu but since his departure things have changed. Many older devotees who have left (posthumously - since 1977) in disgust at the Hinduisation of the organisation (amongst other things) now refer to it as ISHCON, the International Society for Hindu Consciousness; and even FISKCON (Fake Iskcon). So, certainly you are correct as the eyes see it now, but 'incorrect' in the minds of anyone who remembers the early days and how the sankirtan movement was anything BUT Hindu. As they say, "that was then, this is now". And Yata mata tata patha.
So, yes, in contemporary sense ISHCON is a Hindu organisation. One could also argue that it is a pedophile ring of fake gurus. Seriously though, with the constant deviations - the most outrageous being the editing of Prabhupada's original books, not only removing his words but changing the meaning - modern day ISHCON is ruining Prabhupada's ISKCON to the point where it is a shadow of its former self. Iskcon = It's gone!
So much so that this topic is worthy of its own section? हरे कृष्ण Samsbanned (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Disputed and other tags

This article - and associated pages - is not written in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policies. It is clear that people who 'follow' the beliefs of the subject of the article have been slanting and maintaining the content thereof in favour of the subject, and nearly all references are, at root, self-published by the organisation or its adherents. As such it probably needs a complete re-write. Undue weight is given to information which is not of encyclopaedic interest but only to followers of ISKC, and such information is especially subject to questions of factual accuracy by many recognised external sources. Articles on WP must always use reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy and which are not closely associated with the subject.

Do not remove these tags before the various issues are dealt with. (see: Help:Maintenance template removal). There are five different tags used here because they cover different issues with the article. --AlisonW (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the tag bombing of this page, can you point to some specific text or sections which you feel are undue, POV, or COI. I am happy to try to correct some of it. We have a Krishna Temple here in Utah and I occasionally attend their services (since they provide a free vegetarian banquet every Sunday after servies) but I am not a devotee or a member of their religion, just an observer. Please let me know which areas are not to standards and I will try to make it neutral. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
(also copied to your talkpage) Firstly, having multiple issues with an article is not "tag bombing", but putting that mis-accusation aside you have demonstrated one of the major issues with the article in your comment: "Krishna Temple ... I ... attend their services". The article, as it presently stands, is very clearly created (and 'maintained', from what I can see in the history, contrary to WP policy) by supporters of that organisation - directly COI / "believer's POV". WP articles are created to inform and provide information to those who are not fully cognisant of the subject of that article, to provide a *neutral* background about a subject without proselytising and favouring one view of the subject over another. At present this article fails on every count. By your own admission I would suggest you should not edit it due to COI. --AlisonW (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Guru worship

For over a year the lead has said: "ISKCON was founded in 1966 in New York City by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada who is worshipped by followers as Guru and spiritual master." In most faiths being venerated as a Guru and/or master is entirely different from being worshipped, and in most extant monotheisms it would be heretical to use the term for anything beyond a very specific list (in Catholicism saints are venerated, etc.). So of primary importance: what word do ISKCON members themselves use with regard to their veneration of Prabhupada? Second, what word do scholars use? Both should be cited and posted. SamuelRiv (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Their founder "His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada", is viewed by ISKCON devotees as a divine avatar and messenger of Krishna (God). They view him as divine and in their temples there is always an image or small statue of him and the devotees leave offerings of either water, a fruit, a flower, or a leaf to venerate him. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
It is actual worship -- physically through multiple daily ceremonies and bathing and dressing of an effigy, verbally through multiple daily hymns and glorification, mentally through internal prayer and the acceptance that the founder has a post-death connection with his followers, and institutionally through the enforcement that the founder is the absolute highest authority on anything that is perceived as "Vedic" by the cult. So, the affinity of the cult followers for their founder goes indeed much further than mere veneration. As such, cult members use the term "worship". Their founder and other cult pinnacle-heads are worshipped on the same level as their god, as per direction of the founder himself. What scholars use is therefore of no consequence in this matter. WillemV369 (talk) 19:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"Relationship with other groups" section needed

This article needs a section to talk about Ritvikism and its main ideas. This is needed because a large Ritvik group in India is called ISKCON Bangalore while in fact it's a separate institution from ISKCON. So this can become a source of confusion for people who are new to this subject matter. This section could also talk briefly about the relationship between Narayana Maharaja's Pure Bhakti and ISKCON, and also about Paramadvaiti's Vrinda. --Iamrcr (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality of "Women in ISKCON"

There are different groups within the institution trying to push distinct agendas over the subject of women's roles so I request editors to watch and research this section closely enough to ensure that there won't be any bias. Specially it should be highlighted that it's a controversial subject. This section was heavily biased when I found it so I performed some edits. --Iamrcr (talk) 09:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and I suggest that any editor who wishes to improve this article should address two main problems: any one of the {{multiple issues}} tags at article top, and/or the mess of references with lots of red-text errors at bottom. Please do not add garbage to the article without fixing these issues first. Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Extraneous comma

Second paragraph, second sentence. Comma preceding "that its leaders" 198.176.81.33 (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ping

Please ping me should there be any issues will be re-introduction of the multiple issues, and other additions I've made to make it clear that certain parts of this article do not meet policy/guidelines. {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 19:58, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Editors reverting showing bias?

A while back I removed a section at the start which was not only meant to inspire prejudice, but also redudant since the same topic is covered later in the article. Chiswick_Chap keeps reverting it back. Please do not. Another editor FreeKnowledgeCreator keeps removing images of ISKCON centers at the bottom for some reason. Please do not. shiva das 20:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Shiva das, please see WP:PROPORTION, which states, "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Just because those temples are relevant in principle to the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, that does not mean that the article needs pictures of them. The pictures may look pretty, but they are entirely unnecessary, and even inappropriate inasmuch as there is no encyclopedic reason for including them. A small number of pictures would be appropriate; the very large number of pictures you keep restoring are not. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:59, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


That is a subjective opinion. Is there some rule that says you can remove all images if you don't like the number of images? Can you comment on my other complaint? shiva das 03:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

WP:PROPORTION is part of Wikipedia policy. It is not a "subjective opinion". If you insist on restoring images that are unreasonable and unneeded they will be removed. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the actions taken were correct in each case. The lead section of an article is a summary of the rest of the article, and should cover the major points made in the article; this is not "redundant" as it permits readers to read only a brief summary if they choose. By the way, it won't really do to accuse experienced editors of bias; we have between us edited many thousands of articles, including many on Hindu topics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with both your points. If we look at an average wiki article on a religious group how many start off with detailing complaints against the group by various antagonists? This is a clear sign of bias, and also the removal of all images as if that is a right of yours also shows bias imho. shiva das 19:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The "average wiki article" mention is an "Other Stuff Exists" argument, which is not valid anywhere on Wikipedia. Even if that claim were true it would make no difference here. This article is fairly and correctly constructed, and its first two paragraphs are simply descriptive of what it is and what it does. The last paragraph of the lead section, which I repeat is by policy a summary of the article, and required to cover all its aspects, rightly covers how ISKCON has been seen by others; it is, after all, an organisation in the world, and the world's view of it is relevant to the encyclopedia, however much you may not like that. As for "removal of all images", that is simply nonsense; the article contains 7 images (not counting the navbox), a quite typical number given the size of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


So if I go to the page of any religious group and at the start say "The Society for Hating Religions has called this religion a terrible group of people, please hate them." You are saying that is not only allowed it is normal and no one should question bias when people demand that type of statement to be included at the start of every religious group article. Why not include the opinion of the Skeptic societies like so "As has been proven, God doesn't exist, and therefore all people promoting a religious belief are con artists or wackos trying to steal your money". That is exactly what you are doing and promoting. That is clearly bias. As for images, is there a wikipedia rule on the number of images? shiva das 21:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

With respect, you have this completely upside-down. The lead (leading, initial, top) section of an article, as I have explained repeatedly, is purely a summary of the body (main part) of the article. As such, it is prepared AFTER the body, and is not allowed to contain anything that is not in the body. Therefore, if you "go to the page of any religious group" and "at the start" (i.e., in the lead section) start to add anything, you would be acting AGAINST POLICY.
Further, incitement to hatred is illegal (not only a breach of Wikipedia policy, but the law of many countries).
The correct understanding, therefore, is that this article, like many others, contains within its body a section describing controversial events or criticism, and AS A RESULT the lead section also contains a brief summary of that material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


You know its funny to my religious scholar friends to see how Wikipedia treats religious groups whom editors don't understand or may be biased against, because one of our maxims is "a cult is a religion I don't like." That is a joke to us but we take it seriously since to so many people that is how they view the word cult. Here are some facts of ISKCON not found in this article but which is common knowledge in the Hindu world:

  1. They are by far the largest Hindu religious organization outside India.
  2. They are by far the most popular Hindu religious organization with the Hindu diaspora [22].
  3. They are one of the largest and most popular religious groups in India.
  4. They are the most popular religious group for Bollywood
  5. The founder is on Indian postage stamps, major roads are named after him.
  6. In partnership with the Indian government they are the leading provider of free meals for schools.
  7. Their monks are among the most popular motivational speakers in India and the Hindu diaspora.
  8. I could go on and on.
  9. But because Wikipedia allows anyone to edit on any topic, what happens is that people who are not very well educated on a topic but think they are, or those with hidden biases, can take control over topics they wish to control the public dialogue about.
  10. So we end up with an article like this. Where arguably the most influential Hindu religious organization in the world is right off described as a "cult." Even if the word Cult was being used in a non-pejorative sense, which it isn't, still ISKCON clearly isn't by any interpretation of the word.
  11. This article shows an embarrassing lack of awareness on the reality of the current Hindu world. Which is odd considering how well Wikipedia does with Hindu topics in general.

shiva das 22:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Society_for_Krishna_Consciousness/Archive_1&oldid=1143854353"