NationStates Jolt Archive

A little over a month ago I went to the annual local "Community Festival", where people set up booths and pass out information, sell stuff, have petitions to sign, and such, and also have several stages with live music, lots of alcohol, the sweet smell of marijuana in the air, etc. While there, I stopped at a booth where a man gave me a cookie and a copy of the Bhagavad Gita, and we talked about Krishna and the ideals of his religion. I've considered myself Buddhist for a couple years now, not even worrying about the possibility of G-d existing, but was always taught Christianity growing up, so it was a pretty new experience for me.

... Now, after reading a lot of the Gita, I don't understand why people like to limit themselves to one religion, like Christianity, when both are just as likely or unlikely. It isn't likely for anything like a G-d to exist to begin with, so why become so set that only one way is correct, and that G-d exists without question? Also, why totally deny the existance of G-d? It doesn't have to be the hokey G-d that gets mustard stains out of housewive's blouses and wins football games, and it can bring out the goodness in a lot of people as long as they actually follow the non-violence and loving kindness their religion professes.

Welcome to the Enlightment.

And by the way, getting mustard stains out and winning football games never hurts, especially the mustard thing. Actually, I'm praying for a way to get beet juice out of a white blouse.

What happens to mess up religions is that the followers decide they and only they have the one and only way to Heaven. It's all pretty much downhill from there.

The movement that hands out the books is called "Hare Krishna," not "Krishnianity." Krishna-Bhakti is a subset of Hinduism.

The movement is called "Hare Krishna," not "Krishnianity." It's a subset of/offshoot to Hinduism

"Krishnianity" was me making a combination of Christianity and Krishna, following the idea presented in my post, not the name of an actual religion. Kind of a bad pun of sorts with Krish sounding like Christ. I apologize for making a bad combonation :p

The movement that hands out the books is called "Hare Krishna," not "Krishnianity." Krishna-Bhakti is a subset of Hinduism.
I like the OP's name for it, it's much clevererer ;)

Hare Rama.

The movement that hands out the books is called "Hare Krishna," not "Krishnianity." Krishna-Bhakti is a subset of Hinduism.

It is actually ISKCON - International Society for Krishna Consciousness. They are popularly known as the Hare Krishna movement because of the emphasis on the chanting of the mahamantra - Hare Rama Hare Krishna.

Vaishnavism is the major component of Hinduism (Shaivism, Advaita, Dvaitha, Vishistadvaitha, etc being other components) and ISKCON is a movement of the Gaudiya Vaishnavists (there are other Vaishnavist sects, IIRC 4 sects).

It is actually ISKCON - International Society for Krishna Consciousness. They are popularly known as the Hare Krishna movement because of the emphasis on the chanting of the mahamantra - Hare Rama Hare Krishna.
Vaishnavism is the major component of Hinduism (Shaivism, Advaita, Dvaitha, Vishistadvaitha, etc being other components) and ISKCON is a movement of the Gaudiya Vaishnavists (there are other Vaishnavist sects, IIRC 4 sects).

This above is all correct.

What I have heard about ISKCon:

1) they are reviled by all (3) Vaishnav kids I have met (who were from various parts of India) and derided as a cult.

This is (I think) partly because many "components" of the Hindu faith consider them "impure" for alloing non-Indian-born into their ranks. There is still an undercurrent of, "If you're not from Ganga soil, you can't understand the Trimurti", or some such thing.

2)But, all irrational prejudice aside, I think that the history of ISKCon showsthat they may, in fact, be a cult; however, it is possible that the cruelties of their past have overshadowed the reforms they have made today.

Nonetheless, tread lightly with these guys. They have not proved to be "free thinkers" in the times I've spoken with them at length, but absolutists of a wierdly intolerant stripe.

EDIT: Much Better.

It is actually ISKCON - International Society for Krishna Consciousness. They are popularly known as the Hare Krishna movement because of the emphasis on the chanting of the mahamantra - Hare Rama Hare Krishna.

It's sort of like Mormonism. It's actually "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," but that usage is quite inusité compared to "Mormonism" or "Mormon Church." "ISKCON," while handy in the written language, is hardly ever used in common speech, and the overwhelming majority call it "The 'Hare Krishna' Movement."

Vaishnavism is the major component of Hinduism (Shaivism, Advaita, Dvaitha, Vishistadvaitha, etc being other components) and ISKCON is a movement of the Gaudiya Vaishnavists (there are other Vaishnavist sects, IIRC 4 sects).

Naturally, since Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu (the eight?). IIRC, the big schools of Vaishnavism are the "-dvaitas" (Dvaita, Shuddadvaita, Dvaitadvaita, Vishishtadvaita), Ek Saran Nam Dharma and Akintya Beda-Abeda (I think the last one is where Gaudiya Vaishnavism belongs).

Or am I thinking of Vedanta? Then again, could one separate Vaishnavism from Vedanta? Hinduism gives me a headache, sometimes...

What I have heard about ISKCon:

1) they are reviled by all

Not exactly. Like every other philosophy/school/sect in Hinduism (or any other religion for that matter), they have their fanatical followers, admirers, sympathisers, critics and opposers.

Swami Prabhupada came to the US at the age of 69 suffering two heart attacks on the way. In 12 years he established over 100 temples and wrote countless books and gave lectures etc which are the foundation of what is ISKCON today.

He could not have done that if ISKCON is "reviled by all".

This is (I think) partly because many "components" of the Hindu faith consider them "impure" for alloing non-Indian-born into their ranks. There is still an undercurrent of, "If you're not from Ganga soil, you can't understand the Trimurti", or some such thing.

OTOH, there are many who are grateful for Swami Prabhupada for clearing away all the caste nonsense and the false notion that "you can be a hindu only if you are born as one" idea and stayed true to the vedic teaching of "Krinvanto Vishvam Aryam"- make everyone aryan (as in noble, not the nazi perversion of that word).

Yes, there are many such hindus who think that non-Indian cannot be hindus. And there are many hindus (in the US atleast, which I can attest to personally) who go to ISKCON temples where non-hindus (whites, blacks, etc) serve as priests.


2)But, all irrational prejudice aside, I think that the history of ISKCon showsthat they may, in fact, be a cult; however, it is possible that the cruelties of their past have overshadowed the reforms they have made today.


What cruelties are you referring to? The gurukula scandal?

They have not proved to be "free thinkers" in the times I've spoken with them at length, but absolutists of a wierdly intolerant stripe.


I have family members who are ardent Vaishnavists. They tolerate me. :) "Free thinking" is a relative term. Since when is placing your faith and submitting your fill to something you cannot even see is "free thinking"? ;)

As long as they don't blow up shit, I am cool with whatever anybody thinks or preaches.:cool:

I have a religion. I forgot to write down what it was about, but it involved beer and some guy whose name I forgot. The rest is lost.

Or am I thinking of Vedanta? Then again, could one separate Vaishnavism from Vedanta? Hinduism gives me a headache, sometimes...

Vaishnavism draws from the Srimad Bhagavatham whilst Vedanta draws from vedas. Yeah, attempting to understand the whole spectrum of Hinduism overwhelms me all the time.