An article “SABHA to recommend Gay Culture be integrated into ISKCON” is FAKE NEWS. So is the idea that “The “Sabha” – a group formed by the GBC to rubber stamp liberal ideas and introduce them into ISKCON, against what Prabhupada taught was the ideal.” Shoot me if I’m a rubber stamp. I was elected as the chairman of the SABHA one and a half years ago.
The SABHA has tackled some contentious issues such as the book changes with great vigor and debate. I can attest from personal experience that the SABHA is full of “independently thoughtful” devotees NOT picked by the GBC. They are selected from various constituencies who appoint/elect their own representatives. As the chairman, I have no power to “hire or fire.” Seldom have I experienced a more congenial yet disparate group whose expressed purpose given by its GBC approved charter is to be a “check and balance” on the GBC.
The SABHA has the right to suspend resolutions. It can introduce proposals. It can submit position papers. It can raise issues. It can do all these things without requiring any GBC sponsors, and three rotating members attend all the GBC and the GBC-Orgdev meetings. Does that sound like a rubber stamp? Soon the SABHA will have its OWN webpage. The function of the SABHA is to reflect the concerns of the ISKCON diaspora worldwide directly to the GBC body.
Not everyone agrees within the SABHA on certain matters just as happens in the GBC. However, we try to reach consensus by doing mounds of research and discussion all year long. Then we meet in person after the GBC meetings are concluded.
We will announce on Akincana Gocara when our website is operational. Remember: check, double-check, and triple-check. Most “news” doesn’t get it right. Wars are fought due to fake news and people suffer. The article printed on this site is full of fiction, and the SABHA is not “bought” by any liberal or conservative agenda.
YS, Nrsimhananda das
Chairman, SABHA
Manu gives examples of who should populate a Sabha, this is one example:
No one in ISKCON’s SABHA even knows what Mimama is what to speak of the other subjects. The members of ISKCON’s SABHA may or may not be nice devotees but they are not even close to being qualified to be on a SABHA. Another example of ISKCON West doing stupid things and calling it Vedic.
Many in ISKCON West mock Manu Samhita and look for any excuse not to follow it.
So the vast majority of SABHA members are dunces and incarnations of darkness when it comes to knowledge of Krsna’s Vedic culture (with exception of persons like Mahaman, Pancaratna and maybe 1-2 others). And they are supposed to guide the GBC. You don’t need to be Nostradamus to know the future of ISKCON West if these are their guiding lights.
In Vedic culture when we think of Sabha it implies a convocation of the most learned scholars and pandits in the land to advise the king. That is not the nature of ISKCON’s SABHA which is a joke. It is the creation of people like Kaunteya who stuffed it with weak links in the parampara, including Kaunteya’s own wife. None of them are very learned in Krsna’s Vedic culture. That includes Drutakarma Prabhu, who as a veteran member of SAC has proved his profound ignorance. So like SAC the SABHA is worse than a joke. The fact that there are women in it immediately proves it worthlessness just as SAC is worthless by the presence of Urmila and Narayani who proved to be duplicitous and having a conflict of interest. A wooden elephant and a stuffed tiger have only the name. The same is true for the SABHA.
Prabhupāda: No. There is no question of high percentage. I said that even a small percentage, there must be some ideal men. At least people will see that “Here is the ideal man.” Just like we are having. Because they are chanting and dancing, many outsiders are coming, and they are also learning, they are also offering obeisances. And gradually they are offering their service = “Please accept me.” The example is better than precept. If you have an ideal group of men, then people will automatically learn. That is wanted. But don’t mind, I don’t find, I mean to say, any ideal group of men. Even in the priests they are going to hospital for their drinking habit. I saw in sometimes before in a hospital, five thousand patients, alcoholic patients, priest. Priest should be ideal character. And they are advocating homosex. So where is the ideal character men? If the priestly class, they are going to hospital for drinking habit, and they are allowing man-to-man marriage and homosex, then where is ideal character?
Director: But homosexual is a sickness.
Devotee: He said it’s an illness.
Director: It’s an illness. It’s just like a person can’t see, you would punish him for not seeing. You can’t punish a person for being homosexual. That our society says.
Prabhupāda: Well, anyway, the priestly class, sanctioning homosex.
Director: Pardon?
Prabhupāda: Sanctioning. They are allowing homosex. And there was report that man and man was married by the priest. In New York there is a paper, Watchtower. That is a Christian paper. I have seen in that paper. They are condemning, that priest is allowing man-to-man marriage. And they are passing resolution, homosex is passed, “All right.” And in Perth you said that the students are discussing about homosex, in favor of homosex. So where is the ideal character? If you want something tangible business, train some people to become ideal character. That is this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.
Director: What you people say what’s ideal to you is not ideal to somebody else.
Prabhupāda: I am giving the example ideal character.
Director: Yeah, but that’s one opinion.
Prabhupāda: No. It will not depend on opinion. Opinion… What is the value of opinion if the people are all asses? There is no opinion. One should take as it is enjoined in the śāstra. No opinion. What is the use of taking opinion of an ass? So the people are trained up just like dogs and asses, then what is the use of their opinion? If you are to enforce, you must do like this. Just like when we introduced this “No illicit sex.” I never cared for their opinion. The opinion…, immediately there will be discussion. And what is the use of taking their opinion? It must be done. That is the defect of Western civilization. Vox populi, taking opinion of the public. But what is the value of this public? Drunkards, smokers, meat-eaters, woman-hunters. What is the… They are not first-class men. So what is the use of such third-class, fourth-class men’s opinion? We do not advocate such opinion. What Kṛṣṇa said, that is standard, that’s all. Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme, and His version is final. No opinion, no democracy. When you go to a physician, doctor, for treatment, the physician does not place his prescription for opinion of other patients = “Now I am prescribing this medicine for this gentleman. Now give me your opinion.” Does he do that? The all patients, what they will give, opinion? The physician is the perfect person. Whatever he has written prescription, that’s all right. But here in the Western…, everything, public opinion. [break]
Director: You don’t think that patients have any mind of their own?
Prabhupāda: They have mind, but that is deprecated mind. Just like madman, he has got his mind, but what is the value of that mind? You are not going to take opinion of a madman. He has his mind, but he is a madman. Mūḍha. Māyayāpahṛta-jñāna [Bg. 7.15]. His knowledge has been taken away. The mind being, what is called, in disordered condition, there is no value of his opinion.
Type: Conversation
Date: May 21, 1975
Location: Melbourne
The truth remains the chairman has his own views which he will pursue, like attacking the book changes. I haven’t seen how the editors are properly represented against such attacks. The upcoming symposium against the book changes is a prime example targeted toward achieving a certain outcome in favor of undermining the service of BBT editors.
Apropos comment, Sankarshana Prabhu! Here is an example of a glaring mistake in the purport of Bhagavad-gita that Dravida Prabhu pointed out to myself and a devotee living at Vrindavan. Since his correspondence with me was private, I am removing his name. But that the BBT editors needed to fix the mistake is obvious. Here it is:
Dravida Dasa
Sun, Jan 12, 10:57 PM (9 days ago)
to me, XYZ, Dravida
Haribol All,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
It turns out there is a very high likelihood that “pumundi” was a transcriber’s mishearing of “full-moon day.” Here is the evolution of the passage in the present text in BGAII, which reads:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There are many descriptions of sacrifices and special functions for the *full-moon day,* and there is special work in which the result of one’s previous action may be applied. Thus one may gradually become elevated to the state of knowledge.
>>>>>>
History . . .
Original Transcript of Prabhupada’s dictation, with preliminary editing (that’s all we have):
There are many descriptions of sacrifices or observing special functions of the *pumundi,* or special work in which the result of the previous action may be applied and by that gradually he becomes elevated to the state of knowledge.
MAC72
There are many descriptions of sacrifices and special functions of the *pumundi* or special work in which the result of one’s previous action may be applied. Thus one may gradually become elevated to the state of knowledge.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bg 12.11
BBT1983
There are many descriptions of sacrifices and special functions of *punya,* or special work in which the result of one’s previous action may be applied. Thus one may gradually become elevated to the state of knowledge.
>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bg 12.11
Baladeva’s commentary:
By performance of fire sacrifice and *full moon* sacrifices devoid of desire for results which are form of worship of Me, knowledge arises within the person like the lotus arising from the muddy water
BBT2008 to present
There are many descriptions of sacrifices and special functions for the *full-moon day,* and there is special work in which the result of one’s previous action may be applied. Thus one may gradually become elevated to the state of knowledge.
Your servant,
Dravida dasa
On 1/12/2020 4:03 PM, Basu Ghosh Das (basughoshdas1@gmail.com) wrote:
https://vedabase.io/en/library/bg/12/11/
Don’t see that word, here…
Now I see it here:
https://asitis.com/12/11.html
———————
So, it seems that word – pumundi – I have never heard it, and wonder if it
is a Samskrita word? “Punyavaadi” is a good speculation, but that is what
it is – speculation.
Adding Dravida Prabhu with a humble request to help us out here.
Dravida Prabhu, why was the word removed from the new edition? Any clue to
what it should have been? It does seem to have been there in the old
edition in the purport.
Thanks in advance to Dravida Prabhu for providing some light in this
regard.
dasanudas,
Basu Ghosh Das
That’s not the truth. That’s your agenda to provoke an “us” vrs. “they” mentality. You state pure fiction instead of facts. Saying the editors were not properly represented to the SABHA is false news. In fact, Dravida pr., one of THE editors and a self-declared siksha disciple of Jayadwaita Swami, engaged in a month-long online debate with Garuda in a public email exchange shared with all the SABHA members. In fact, the chairman’s own views are no more important than anyone else’s on the SABHA. There is equal opportunity to share/discuss the issues whether it is on book changes or any other subject. Any member can initiate topics, and any member can contribute as much or little as they want. The idea that the chairman controls other members minds is pure fiction. In fact, the upcoming symposium about – not against – the books changes is a healthy review of BBT editorial policies by a majority of lettered Vaisnava scholars along with eminent non-Vaisnava ones for the purpose of casting light on a contentious issue that has divided the society. The BBT is under Your use of the words “attacking the book changes,” and “undermining the service of BBT editors” are incendiary words unbecoming of a person who purports to be telling the “truth.” Your bias is clearly transparent from your accusatory use of language. You seem to want to fan the seeds of discord rather than enter into a cool discussion of the real facts. Your apparently are unaware that BBT managers themselves say that Jayadwaita Swami “went too far.” So your blind following of the existing editing is not even the position of the publishers. They want to see a “corrected” and “panel reviewed” edition of the Gita and SB also. There has been a lot of congenial dialogue to reach a mutual understanding with the usual bumps and grinds on the way. By the way, the symposium is not “targeting” any outcome. Your assumption is denigrating to the integrity of the scholars, both Vaisnava and non-Vaisnava, who have written papers on the subject. These are anything but the kind of people who sell their souls for money. Anyway, there is no money to buy them off even if they were corrupt. I suggest that you check your facts before making spurious accusations against well-meaning people.
In August last year what appears to be SABHA official resolution regarding this symposium and book editing issues was published online, shared on Facebook etc. It openly states its support for Garuda Prabhu’s efforts, which can be safely categorized as “attacking book changes” – he made his position quite clear on this subject. SABHA officially called for immediate formation of a new editorial board comprised of “vaishnava scholars” while acknowledging that BBT declined to discuss creation of such board, at least with Garuda Prabhu.
Speaking of vaishnava scholars, “lettered” or otherwise, we already had a disaster of an academic publication produced by “vaishnava scholars” called “The Hare Krishna Movement:
The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant”, published by Columbia University Press. If you can find a review by “Braja Sevaki Devi Dasi” it would give you a valuable insight why such scholars, even though vaishnavas, are not always qualified to speak about ISKCON to the academia, or dictate BBT editorial policies.
I don’t know who will be invited to speak at the symposium or who is expected to join this editorial board, but Garuda Prabhu himself seems to be the prime candidate. He is a wonderful vaishnava in his own right but last year he started initiating disciples without going through GBC approval process and, on the prodding of his disciple, accepted a title of Kaviraja, even if he doesn’t write Sanskrit poetry. So now we have one Bhaktivinoda, one Bhaktisiddhanta, one Bhaktivedanta, and two Kavirajas in our line – one Krishnadas Kaviraja and Garuda Das Kaviraja. And that’s a “lettered vaishnava” that SABHA voted to support (21 to 4, with two abstentions). God save us all, again.
In August last year what appears to be SABHA official resolution regarding this symposium and book editing issues was published online, shared on Facebook etc. It openly states its support for Garuda Prabhu’s efforts, which can be safely categorized as “attacking book changes” – he made his position quite clear on this subject. SABHA officially called for immediate formation of a new editorial board comprised of “vaishnava scholars” while acknowledging that BBT declined to discuss creation of such board, at least with Garuda Prabhu.
Speaking of vaishnava scholars, “lettered” or otherwise, we already had a disaster of an academic publication produced by “vaishnava scholars” called “The Hare Krishna Movement:
The Postcharismatic Fate of a Religious Transplant”, published by Columbia University Press. If you can find a review by “Braja Sevaki Devi Dasi” it would give you a valuable insight why such scholars, even though vaishnavas, are not always qualified to speak about ISKCON to the academia, or dictate BBT editorial policies.
I don’t know who will be invited to speak at the symposium or who is expected to join this editorial board, but Garuda Prabhu himself seems to be the prime candidate. He is a wonderful vaishnava in his own right but last year he started initiating disciples without going through GBC approval process and, on the prodding of his disciple, accepted a title of Kaviraja, even if he doesn’t write Sanskrit poetry. So now we have one Bhaktivinoda, one Bhaktisiddhanta, one Bhaktivedanta, and two Kavirajas in our line – one Krishnadas Kaviraja and Garuda Das Kaviraja. And that’s a “lettered vaishnava” that SABHA voted to support (21 to 4, with two abstentions). God save us all, again.
Yes, Sitalatma, the SABHA supports Garuda’s efforts which challenges, not attacks, unnecessary book changes. (Garuda pr met with Iskcon Resolve a few months ago to discuss various issues, and he remains an Iskcon member in good standing. The SABHA is not a body which determines who is excommunicated from Iskcon so it defers to other Iskcon bodies for such designations.) The BBT had made their own resolution to form an editorial board in Jun ’19, but the composition of that board was scheduled to be discussed with Garuda pr et al after numerous conversations between him and Brahma Muhurta pr. That meeting kept being postponed. The SABHA passed a proposal that the GBC approve the membership of that panel in lieu of the fact that there was no forthcoming dialogue about its composition with devotees whose views on the editing challenged those propagated within the BBT by Dravida pr and Jayadwaita Swami. At the same time, the idea of a symposium was hatched by Garuda pr in order to at least air the issues of posthumous editing in a scholarly gathering of lettered devotees and academicians. Iskcon Resolved somehow got involved and organized a meeting between BBT representatives including Dravdia pr and challenging perspectives by devotees such as Garuda pr., Urmila dd, and Partrikananda pr. The latter got ill, and I was flown in as a substitute at literally the last minute. Along with the participation of Garuda and Urmila, Radhika Raman, Kalichanji, Naresvara, Brahma Muhurta, and Dravida pr’s, Brahma Tirtha and Vraja Vihari pr’s conducted a cordial and productive discussion for three days. There was an agreement to supply a list of qualified devotees from which the GBC could evaluated and choose – selections subject to the approval of the BBT managers. That has all been done. Private discussions continued after that meeting. They shed light on issues of editing that had been either overlooked or not plumbed as deeply. I must add that the communication between all parties was very respectful and open – a mutual attempt to get it as “right” as possible. BBT personnel came to the conclusion – as has Jayadwaita Swami himself – that there had been some unnecessary editing and some editing that needed more study. Contrary to your speculation, Garuda pr is not on the editorial board. So the use of the word “attack” is hardly applicable because it suggest that everyone involved is not working toward a common understanding. Yes, there were some ad hominem here and there, but so what? We all overlooked any “ego bashing” and carried forward to this day. I hope this more detailed description of the events that transpired mitigates whatever fears you might have about both the “book change controversy” and Garuda pr himself who, when you get to know him, is not only a bright, dedicated Prabhpadanuga, but a heck of a nice guy. He is open to everyone and would welcome dialoguing with you! (Just wait till after the symposium; he’s very busy right now.) In my opinion, the symposium is going to illuminate a field of editing not only for our in-house BBT, but for the publishing world. Just what have been and should be the conventions of posthumous editing in terms of creating, annotating, etc. for ANY author including all the Iskcon writers who have been prolific. What is appropriate for their disciples or descendants to do with their books once the author has departed? What is the standard for classical texts such as Shakespeare or religious ones like The Book of Mormon? What standards do scholars accept and what is disparaged as tainted or contaminated? We were young and never considered the effects of our changing SP’s books. No doubt everyone was sincere in their own way. Nevertheless, the movement got split, the BBT lost sales and millions of dollars in legal fees, and scholars questioned the authority of the new editions. Prabhupada was very concerned about how his books are regarded by the academic community. The symposium addresses this and other issues. The BBT can take or leave any of its insights and/or conclusions. So, as Srila Prabhupada is fond of saying, “What is the difficulty?”
The above comment was made eight months ago but it appeared on the site only recently. There is no point in going back into the details and I don’t want to be in the position of trying to prove how Garuda Prabhu is a bad devotee anyway. I would only say that “BBT Edits Review” group of Facebook led by Garuda Prabhu (and early on facilitated by Nrisimhananda Prabhu) has become a veritable cesspool of vaishnava aparadha. Not everyone there is of this offensive disposition, of course, but BBT is regularly called “demoniac” there, they were posts attacking BBT editors for their Jewish ethnicity, there were suggestions to castrate them etc. Latest proposal is to incite Twitter mobs to force BBT to reverse the edits. There were senseless and inexplicable attacks on devotees who have nothing to do with edits whatsoever but who have been selected for BBT’s own review panel.
I’m afraid, however, that we have come to the point where this kind of discourse is normalized among the devotees and their reaction is “so what?”
Garuda has told me numerous times that he is constantly removing any offensive language, ad hominems, etc. The policy of this group is clearly spelled outin the “About:” “However, assessments or evaluations of persons themselves and their motives will not be allowed in this group’s discussions. This group focuses, rather, on assessments and evaluations of the editing work of the BBT itself.” If you find any examples of such demagoguery, please bring it to Garuda’s attention. You continue to freely comment as a participant on the private site. Surely, there will be posts that are emotionally explosive, but the host continues to monitor. If he is missing something or you have concerns, Garuda is available to address them. As far as the battle over the editing, that fracas has been mitigated by the formation of the Revisions Review Panel. It is methodically doing its work, and many are hopeful that it will help close the divide – if not completely, than, at least, more than present. Let’s see. I find it odd that, as you claim, posts were attacking BBT editors for their Jewish ethnicity. Garuda was brought up as one. What a circus!
This is the usual advice (“tell Garuda, he will remove it” – usually given by Garuda Prabhu himself) but there is simply too much stuff to clean (and it’s not members responsibility anyway). Last time Garuda Prabhu was active in that group was three weeks ago. There are many other moderators as well and they see the offensive posts and comments but don’t remove them, for various reasons. I understand they take their cues from Garuda Prabhu and there is a history of moderating there.
The proposal to turn Twitter against BBT I mentioned earlier, for example, has got a comment containing “ISKCON it’s a Corrupt Institution and Divorced from Srila Prabhupada”. It was replied by another “admin” who disagreed but did not remove it. So I don’t feel any responsibility to clean it up and report it to anybody. It’s not on me. Rather, this kind of language and attitudes has been normalized there, as I said before.
Another post, from three days ago, starts with “Book changes are demoniac”. Everybody has seen it and it’s a rather typical sentiment from its author who has never been censored for saying these things, so why should I complain? Many active members fully agree with it and it got a bunch of “likes” and “hearts”. It’s been normalized.
But let me raise another point, Nrisimhananda Prabhu-ji – why are we even arguing about GBC official position on homosexuality here? What’s the point of writing all these laws when someone like Garuda Prabhu does not care for following them, starts initiating people without GBC approval, and it’s considered totally fine, nobody objects? What’s the point of that FDG resolution if, hypothetically speaking, someone with good connections to temple presidents and other leading devotees can simply start initiating and nothing will happen because of this considerable individual support? Who would stop them? Indian RGB? Why should they care what people on the other side of the world think when they have support of their immediate community and real person to person relationships with their disciples right in front of them?
In other words, when the laws are flouted without punishment they are not laws anymore. Certainly not Krishna’s laws, so what’s the point of investing so much energy in writing them?
You’re loaded with plenty of false accusations yourself and I don’t care for them. Whatever contributions other SABHA members make is not denied by me. You’ve been a catalyst with the book changes topic though dating at least back to arranging the public LA meeting with Dravida and Garuda a few years ago. So as chairman of the group you have an added advantage to push forward agendas you have in mind.
Over the past several years I’ve encountered many challenges from devotees about edits in Prabhupada’s books. When I didn’t know the reasons for edits, I’ve inquired from Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Prabhu about them. Each and every time they provided proof from Prabhupada’s manuscripts which defeated the challenges. One such defeated challenge came from Garuda Prabhu. From what I’ve heard from Garuda, based on his academic publishing understanding, he considers resourcing Prabhupada’s manuscripts as being unethical to Prabhupada as an author. I don’t agree with that one bit, and neither do the editors.
Nothing has ever been proven that the editors deviated in representing Prabhupada by their edits. There’s just a lot of quibbling about phrases being adjusted, which don’t in fact deviate from the true meaning Prabhupada gave. And often the wrong meaning in an original book was corrected with the right meaning Prabhupada gave.
Devotees often don’t consider that Hayagriva, or other original book editors, changed Prabhupada’s words. But they’ll get up in arms when later editors adjust Prabhupada’s words. Prabhupada endorsed Jayadvaita Swami’s editing far more than Hayagriva’s. “Concerning the editing of Jayadvaita prabhu, whatever he does is approved by me. I have confidence in him.” (letter to Radhavallabha September 7, 1976) So if no deviation stands out in Jayadvaita Swami’s editing, who are we to doubt Prabhupada’s endorsement? Just a bunch of quibbling which can result in a less accurate representation of Prabhupada if revised books are edited back to the inferior original publications.
The only concept of Jayadvaita Swami going overboard with his editing is only caused by devotee’s unwillingness to make the adjustment to his more accurate representation of Prabhupada. That’s all. And what a travesty it would be to overhaul the glorious service Jayadvaita Swami has done. If that happens I’ll still only read the editions Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Prabhu edited. That way I’ll know for certain I’m reading what Prabhupada really gave.
As I stated, “Any member can initiate topics, and any member can contribute as much or little as they want. The idea that the chairman controls other members minds is pure fiction.” And I also said, “Your apparently are unaware that BBT managers themselves say that Jayadwaita Swami ‘went too far.'” Anyway, the majority of the Bhagavad-gita had no drafts to refer to. So your idea that everything is a “more accurate representation of Prabhupada” cannot be based on the idea that the editors referred to the “drafts” in a majority of cases. Even when they did, there is no way to prove that Srila Prabhupada did not approve of the way Hayagriva pr edited. For example, “The Blessed Lord” was taken out by Jayadwaita Swami despite the fact that Srila Prabhupada uses this term in the CC and other places without even referencing the verse in the Gita. In other words, he liked it, wrote it without Hayagriva’s editing, and condoned its printing by the BBT – all while he was with us. And he read from the BG and all those books. If he wanted it changed, he would have given explicit instructions. His main instruction was “no changes.” There are numerous instances of Jayadwaita Swami editing as he wanted, not necessarily as Srila Prabhupada intended. There are errors to fix, but the general rule is to leave it alone once the author who authorized (note author in authorized) the final manuscript (often with the use of an editor; most authors employ them) has passed away. No need to argue this point amongst ourselves. The BBT has put together a distinguished panel to sort through the changes and determine what to roll back despite your unqualified contention that what Jayadwaita Swami has done must be closer to Prabhupada.
Again you made the false accusation that I believe other members of SABHA have a limited voice. You are also apparently unaware that there was an occasion when Prabhupada shot down “The Blessed Lord said”. Prabhupada said, “No. The Supreme Personality of Godhead said”. The Blessed Lord said was Hayagriva’s idea that Prabhupada didn’t make a fuss about. Did he have to? Prabhupada’s translation of Sri Bhagavat uvaca was provided in the second edition, and the meaning is not ambiguous. Such as a possible “who has blessed the Lord”?
The “went to far” had nothing to do with changing Prabhupada’s intended meanings. So it is factually a mute point of inconsequential word adjustments which irritate some devotees. Unfortunately the same devotees focus on the inconsequential instead being grateful for the plentiful corrections and restorations Jayadvaita Swami made. It is pitiful.
I’m glad that we agree that no one SABHA member has any more right to bring topics into discussion; there is equal opportunity to raise issues. The SABHA responds according to the interest in the subject. In the case of the book changes, there was a lot of interest. As far as arsa prayoga principle, the panel will be determining guidelines and standards for the BBT to follow; we don’t have to argue that case here of what is and isn’t “inconsequential.” Jayadwaita Swami also did a lot of good work, and he is acknowledged for that. Often devotees were encouraged by Srila Prabhupada giving them full confidence and later they were corrected by him. Gargamuni pr quoted Srila Prabhupada saying that “You can do anything you want.” No comment needed. Prabhupada cited the example of the strength in a bundle of sticks and the relative weakness of one alone. The changes are being reviewed by an august assembly of devotees chosen by the BBT. What’s not to like?
I would like for this matter to just be dropped, because the concerns about the editing are peripheral and are not at all formidable. As I already mentioned both editors are well equipped to defend their edits, and they can take on all challenges. They also have support from Prabhupada for what they’ve done. Any alteration to the services done by Jayadvaita Swami and Dravida Prabhu will stain their reputations, and that’s a disgrace. Anyone who got the service they did would have approached things differently, and satisfying a majority of devotees by that service would have been nearly impossible.
I compare complaints about the editing to an experience I had. After many years of offering aratis in ISKCON temples a certain way, information came from the deity ministry that another way was the authorized way we should now follow. For some time I refused doing it the new way, until I just accepted that all the pujaris in a temple should offer arati the same way. Numbers of older devotees in ISKCON have refused to accept the revised books for the same mentality I had. That mentality has trickled down to younger devotees, and for no substantial good reasoning. Altering the books again to attempt to appease a majority is a poor excuse for the undertaking, and the idea of it being embraced is highly unlikely.
The book changes are indeed are not the topic of the SABHA discussion going on, but you brought it up! So glad that it’s being dropped from this thread. It had nothing to do with the subject. Good idea.
Not to prolong this discussion, but I just saw this, posted a couple of days ago on Tattvavit Prabhu’s blog:
“The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, on October 17, 2019, assembled a Revisions Review Panel, a group of accomplished devotees who will evaluate revisions made by the BBT editors, to assure that fidelity to Srila Prabhupada’s intent is preserved in his published works.
The panel will design criteria and a system by which proposed, or previously accepted revisions will be reviewed. This panel of reviewers stands for a one-year term: Pradyumna Dasa, Bhanu Swami, Bhakti Vijnana Swami, Kalachandji Dasa, Krsna Ksetra Swami, Radhika Ramana Dasa, and Krsnarupa Devi Dasi. The BBT will annually review and re-certify the team’s members. The BBT had previously passed resolutions in 2016 and early 2019 to form such a group and recently brought the plan to fruition.”
Is that the original Pradyumna das who was Prabhupada’s Sanskrit editor? If so I think he’s a good person to select for this job. I don’t know all the others, but I also approve of Bhakti Vijnana Swami and Krishna Ksetra Swami who both have spoken favorably about the editing.
That was the entire post, copy pasted word for word. It didn’t even occur to me that it could be THAT Pradyumna Prabhu. I honestly have no idea.
https://tvdas.tumblr.com/post/190385980044
When I commented that I would like the book changes topic to be dropped, I wasn’t referring the topic as it’s been discussed in this thread. I was referring to the general attention being given to it by SABHA, the GBC, or anyone else who has a problem with it. Here’s a reference from Prabhupada which could easily abolish the 72 edition for the entirety of mistakes in it.
From Pradyumna das, Prabhupada’s Sanskrit editor: Once we were in Prabhupada’s room in New York when Radhaballabha asked Prabhupada, “So, after you finish the Bhagavatam, Prabhupada, what books would you like to translate?”
Prabhupada said, “Oh, maybe Jiva Goswami’s Sat Sandharbha, or Vedanta-Sutra or Bhagavad-gita. There’re so many.” Someone spoke up, “But Prabhupada, you already did the Bhagavad-gita.”
Prabhupada said, “There are so many commentaries. We did a small part.” He said, “Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, everyone has given a Gita commentary. We could do many Gitas, not just one.” So he had a conception like that.
The book changes are indeed are not the topic of LGBTQ, but you brought it up! So glad that it’s being dropped from this thread. It had nothing to do with the subject. Good idea.
Regarding Jayadvaita Swami editing on his own, that’s exactly what Hayagriva did, minus the resources Jayadvaita Swami had at his disposal, plus the added years of experience in Krishna consciousness. Where no drafts were available Jayadvaita Swami referenced the same commentaries Prabhupada did by Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakur, and Sridhar Swami to verify and clarify points Prabhupada was making. Jayadvaita Swami sent me proofs of these commentaries for one verse, which in effect exposed a mistake in the 72 Gita; a mistake rectified in the 83 edition. So I don’t buy the comment that Jayadvaita Swami did whatever he wanted, as if he acted whimsically. He wanted to represent Prabhupada as accurately as possible and apparently Prabhupada recognized that. “Whatever he does is approved by me”.
I know of four devotees who represent the bundle of sticks that were engaged in revision work for the 83 Gita. One of them was the highly respected and literary competent Gopiparanadhana Prabhu. All four of them vouched for the transparency of Jayadvaita Swami’s editing. And since no notable mistake can be found in Jayadvaita Swami’s editing for the 83 edition, “going to far” by only essentially rephrasing things is based on the belief that wording in the 72 edition should be regarded as some kind of gold standard. Review the following example and then decide how credible that “gold standard” is.
Taken from the purport of BG 8.28:
Prabhupada’s dictation: Therefore one should take chance of learning Bhagavt Gita from a devotee of Krsna. Not from mental speculators . This is called faith.
72 edition: Hearing the Gita from devotees, not from mental speculators, is called faith.
83 edition: One should therefore learn Bhagavad-gita from a devotee of Krsna, not from mental speculators. This is a sign of faith.
Prabhupada’s dictation: Then, when he is in search of such a devotee and fortunately gets the association of such devotee he actually begins to study and understand Bhagavat Gita.
72 edition: Through association of devotees, one is placed in devotional service, and by this service Krsna’s activities, form, pastimes, name, etc., become clear, and all misgivings are dispelled.
83 edition: When one searches for a devotee and fortunately gets a devotee’s association one actually begins to study and understand Bhagavad-gita.
Prabhupada’s dictation: By advancement of association of the devotee one is placed into devotional service and by performance of those devotional service , al his misgivings about Krsna or God His activities, His Form, His Pastimes, His Name, everything becomes clear.
72 edition: Through association of devotees, one is placed in devotional service, and by this service Krsna’s activities, form, pastimes, name, etc., become clear, and all misgivings are dispelled. (repeat of sentence above in 72 edition which addresses Prabhupada’s point here)
83 edition: By advancement in the association of the devotee one is placed in devotional service, and this service dispels all one’s misgivings about Krsna, or God, and Krsna’s activities, form, pastimes, name and other features.
Prabhupada’s dictation: And after perfect clearance of these misgivings one becomes fixed up in the study.
72 edition: Then once doubts are removed, the study of the Gita becomes extremely pleasurable, and one develops a taste and feeling for Krsna consciousness.
83 edition: After these misgivings have been perfectly cleared away, one becomes fixed in one’s study.
Prabhupada’s dictation: And by being fixed up in that way, he relishes the study of Bhagavat Gita and then he acquires his state of being of feeling always Krsna consciousness.
72 edition: Then once doubts are removed, the study of the Gita becomes extremely pleasurable, and one develops a taste and feeling for Krsna consciousness. (repeat of previous sentence above in 72 edition which addresses Prabhupada’s point here)
83 edition: Then one relishes the study of Bhagavad-gita and attains the state of feeling always Krsna conscious.
Regarding Jayadvaita Swami editing on his own, that’s exactly what Hayagriva did, minus the resources Jayadvaita Swami had at his disposal, plus the added years of experience in Krishna consciousness. Where no drafts were available Jayadvaita Swami referenced the same commentaries Prabhupada did by Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakur, and Sridhar Swami to verify and clarify points Prabhupada was making. Jayadvaita Swami sent me proofs of these commentaries for one verse, which in effect exposed a mistake in the 72 Gita; a mistake rectified in the 83 edition. So I don’t buy the comment that Jayadvaita Swami did whatever he wanted, as if he acted whimsically. He wanted to represent Prabhupada as accurately as possible and apparently Prabhupada recognized that. “Whatever he does is approved by me”.
I know of four devotees who represent the bundle of sticks that were engaged in revision work for the 83 Gita. One of them was the highly respected and literary competent Gopiparanadhana Prabhu. All four of them vouched for the transparency of Jayadvaita Swami’s editing. And since no notable mistake can be found in Jayadvaita Swami’s editing for the 83 edition, “going to far” by only essentially rephrasing things is based on the belief that wording in the 72 edition should be regarded as some kind of gold standard. Review the following example and then decide how credible that “gold standard” is.
Taken from the purport of BG 8.28:
Prabhupada’s dictation: Therefore one should take chance of learning Bhagavat Gita from a devotee of Krsna. Not from mental speculators . This is called faith.
72 edition: Hearing the Gita from devotees, not from mental speculators, is called faith.
83 edition: One should therefore learn Bhagavad-gita from a devotee of Krsna, not from mental speculators. This is a sign of faith.
Prabhupada’s dictation: Then, when he is in search of such a devotee and fortunately gets the association of such devotee he actually begins to study and understand Bhagavat Gita.
72 edition: Through association of devotees, one is placed in devotional service, and by this service Krsna’s activities, form, pastimes, name, etc., become clear, and all misgivings are dispelled.
83 edition: When one searches for a devotee and fortunately gets a devotee’s association one actually begins to study and understand Bhagavad-gita.
Prabhupada’s dictation: By advancement of association of the devotee one is placed into devotional service and by performance of those devotional service , all his misgivings about Krsna or God His activities, His Form, His Pastimes, His Name, everything becomes clear.
72 edition: Through association of devotees, one is placed in devotional service, and by this service Krsna’s activities, form, pastimes, name, etc., become clear, and all misgivings are dispelled. (repeat of sentence above in 72 edition which addresses Prabhupada’s point here)
83 edition: By advancement in the association of the devotee one is placed in devotional service, and this service dispels all one’s misgivings about Krsna, or God, and Krsna’s activities, form, pastimes, name and other features.
Prabhupada’s dictation: And after perfect clearance of these misgivings one becomes fixed up in the study.
72 edition: Then once doubts are removed, the study of the Gita becomes extremely pleasurable, and one develops a taste and feeling for Krsna consciousness.
83 edition: After these misgivings have been perfectly cleared away, one becomes fixed in one’s study.
Prabhupada’s dictation: And by being fixed up in that way, he relishes the study of Bhagavat Gita and then he acquires his state of being of feeling always Krsna consciousness.
72 edition: Then once doubts are removed, the study of the Gita becomes extremely pleasurable, and one develops a taste and feeling for Krsna consciousness. (repeat of previous sentence above in 72 edition which addresses Prabhupada’s point here)
83 edition: Then one relishes the study of Bhagavad-gita and attains the state of feeling always Krsna conscious.
Jayadvaita Swami knows more about his editing service than any BBT manager. As shown above, whatever Hayagriva did was a rewrite of what Prabhupada said. Who’s rewrite matched Prabhupada’s words and intent more? Those who have a problem with Jayadvaita Swami’s superior rewrite of Prabhupada’s words need not cling to their imagined gold standard that occurred in print in the 72 edition. The trade off is negligible when the argument of “words of the pure devotee” are factually considered. If anything Jayadvaita Swami was more accurate in conveying the words of the pure devotee than Hayagriva was.
Regarding Jayadvaita Swami editing on his own, that’s exactly what Hayagriva did, minus the resources Jayadvaita Swami had at his disposal, plus the added years of experience in Krishna consciousness. Where no drafts were available Jayadvaita Swami referenced the same commentaries Prabhupada did by Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakur, and Sridhar Swami to verify and clarify points Prabhupada was making. Jayadvaita Swami sent me proofs of these commentaries for one verse, which in effect exposed a mistake in the 72 Gita; a mistake rectified in the 83 edition. So I don’t buy the comment that Jayadvaita Swami did whatever he wanted, as if he acted whimsically. He wanted to represent Prabhupada as accurately as possible and apparently Prabhupada recognized that. “Whatever he does is approved by me”.
I know of four devotees who represent the bundle of sticks that were engaged in revision work for the 83 Gita. One of them was the highly respected and literary competent Gopiparanadhana Prabhu. All four of them vouched for the transparency of Jayadvaita Swami’s editing. And since no notable mistake can be found in Jayadvaita Swami’s editing for the 83 edition, “going to far” by only essentially rephrasing things is based on the belief that wording in the 72 edition should be regarded as some kind of gold standard. Review the following example and then decide how credible that “gold standard” is.
Taken from the purport of BG 8.28:
Prabhupada’s dictation: Therefore one should take chance of learning Bhagavt Gita from a devotee of Krsna. Not from mental speculators . This is called faith.
72 edition: Hearing the Gita from devotees, not from mental speculators, is called faith.
83 edition: One should therefore learn Bhagavad-gita from a devotee of Krsna, not from mental speculators. This is a sign of faith.
Prabhupada’s dictation: Then, when he is in search of such a devotee and fortunately gets the association of such devotee he actually begins to study and understand Bhagavat Gita.
72 edition: Through association of devotees, one is placed in devotional service, and by this service Krsna’s activities, form, pastimes, name, etc., become clear, and all misgivings are dispelled.
83 edition: When one searches for a devotee and fortunately gets a devotee’s association one actually begins to study and understand Bhagavad-gita.
Prabhupada’s dictation: By advancement of association of the devotee one is placed into devotional service and by performance of those devotional service , al his misgivings about Krsna or God His activities, His Form, His Pastimes, His Name, everything becomes clear.
72 edition: Through association of devotees, one is placed in devotional service, and by this service Krsna’s activities, form, pastimes, name, etc., become clear, and all misgivings are dispelled. (repeat of sentence above in 72 edition which addresses Prabhupada’s point here)
83 edition: By advancement in the association of the devotee one is placed in devotional service, and this service dispels all one’s misgivings about Krsna, or God, and Krsna’s activities, form, pastimes, name and other features.
Prabhupada’s dictation: And after perfect clearance of these misgivings one becomes fixed up in the study.
72 edition: Then once doubts are removed, the study of the Gita becomes extremely pleasurable, and one develops a taste and feeling for Krsna consciousness.
83 edition: After these misgivings have been perfectly cleared away, one becomes fixed in one’s study.
Prabhupada’s dictation: And by being fixed up in that way, he relishes the study of Bhagavat Gita and then he acquires his state of being of feeling always Krsna consciousness.
72 edition: Then once doubts are removed, the study of the Gita becomes extremely pleasurable, and one develops a taste and feeling for Krsna consciousness. (repeat of previous sentence above in 72 edition which addresses Prabhupada’s point here)
83 edition: Then one relishes the study of Bhagavad-gita and attains the state of feeling always Krsna conscious.
Why Akincana staff keeps deleting my following comment patronizes one side of a view. The charge has been made above that Jayadvaita Swami edited Prabhupada’s Gita independently and whimsically. I’m providing counter evidence to that charge, so why is that evidence being deleted? Is Akincana another site like Dandavats which only caters to partisan views? If so I’ll curtail visiting it as I have with Dandavats. My response one more time:the
Regarding Jayadvaita Swami editing on his own, that’s exactly what Hayagriva did, minus the resources Jayadvaita Swami had at his disposal, plus the added years of experience in Krishna consciousness. Where no drafts were available Jayadvaita Swami referenced the same commentaries Prabhupada did by Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakur, and Sridhar Swami to verify and clarify points Prabhupada was making. Jayadvaita Swami sent me proofs of these commentaries for one verse, which in effect exposed a mistake in the 72 Gita; a mistake rectified in the 83 edition. So I don’t buy the comment that Jayadvaita Swami did whatever he wanted, as if he acted whimsically. He wanted to represent Prabhupada as accurately as possible and apparently Prabhupada recognized that. “Whatever he does is approved by me”.
I know of four devotees who represent the bundle of sticks that were engaged in revision work for the 83 Gita. One of them was the highly respected and literary competent Gopiparanadhana Prabhu. All four of them vouched for the transparency of Jayadvaita Swami’s editing. And since no notable mistake can be found in Jayadvaita Swami’s editing for the 83 edition, “going to far” by only essentially rephrasing things is based on the belief that wording in the 72 edition should be regarded as some kind of gold standard. Review the following example and then decide how credible that “gold standard” is.
Taken from the purport of BG 8.28:
Prabhupada’s dictation: Therefore one should take chance of learning Bhagavt Gita from a devotee of Krsna. Not from mental speculators . This is called faith.
72 edition: Hearing the Gita from devotees, not from mental speculators, is called faith.
83 edition: One should therefore learn Bhagavad-gita from a devotee of Krsna, not from mental speculators. This is a sign of faith.
Prabhupada’s dictation: Then, when he is in search of such a devotee and fortunately gets the association of such devotee he actually begins to study and understand Bhagavat Gita.
72 edition: Through association of devotees, one is placed in devotional service, and by this service Krsna’s activities, form, pastimes, name, etc., become clear, and all misgivings are dispelled.
83 edition: When one searches for a devotee and fortunately gets a devotee’s association one actually begins to study and understand Bhagavad-gita.
Prabhupada’s dictation: By advancement of association of the devotee one is placed into devotional service and by performance of those devotional service , al his misgivings about Krsna or God His activities, His Form, His Pastimes, His Name, everything becomes clear.
72 edition: Through association of devotees, one is placed in devotional service, and by this service Krsna’s activities, form, pastimes, name, etc., become clear, and all misgivings are dispelled. (repeat of sentence above in 72 edition which addresses Prabhupada’s point here)
83 edition: By advancement in the association of the devotee one is placed in devotional service, and this service dispels all one’s misgivings about Krsna, or God, and Krsna’s activities, form, pastimes, name and other features.
Prabhupada’s dictation: And after perfect clearance of these misgivings one becomes fixed up in the study.
72 edition: Then once doubts are removed, the study of the Gita becomes extremely pleasurable, and one develops a taste and feeling for Krsna consciousness.
83 edition: After these misgivings have been perfectly cleared away, one becomes fixed in one’s study.
Prabhupada’s dictation: And by being fixed up in that way, he relishes the study of Bhagavat Gita and then he acquires his state of being of feeling always Krsna consciousness.
72 edition: Then once doubts are removed, the study of the Gita becomes extremely pleasurable, and one develops a taste and feeling for Krsna consciousness. (repeat of previous sentence above in 72 edition which addresses Prabhupada’s point here)
83 edition: Then one relishes the study of Bhagavad-gita and attains the state of feeling always Krsna conscious.
Jayadvaita Swami knows more about his editing service than any BBT manager. As shown above, whatever Hayagriva did was a rewrite of what Prabhupada said. Who’s rewrite matched Prabhupada’s words and intent more? Those who can’t stomach Jayadvaita Swami’s superior rewrite of Prabhupada’s words need to learn to deal with their hung up attitudes.
Regarding Jayadvaita Swami editing on his own, that’s exactly what Hayagriva did, minus the resources Jayadvaita Swami had at his disposal, plus the added years of experience in Krishna consciousness. Where no drafts were available Jayadvaita Swami referenced the same commentaries Prabhupada did by Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Visvanatha Chakravarti Thakur, and Sridhar Swami to verify and clarify points Prabhupada was making. Jayadvaita Swami sent me proofs of these commentaries for one verse, which in effect exposed a mistake in the 72 Gita; a mistake rectified in the 83 edition. So I don’t buy the comment that Jayadvaita Swami did whatever he wanted, as if he acted whimsically. He wanted to represent Prabhupada as accurately as possible and apparently Prabhupada recognized that. “Whatever he does is approved by me”.
I know of four devotees who represent the bundle of sticks that were engaged in revision work for the 83 Gita. One of them was the highly respected and literary competent Gopiparanadhana Prabhu. All four of them vouched for the transparency of Jayadvaita Swami’s editing. And since no notable mistake can be found in Jayadvaita Swami’s editing for the 83 edition, “going to far” by only essentially rephrasing things is based on the belief that wording in the 72 edition should be regarded as some kind of gold standard. Review the following example and then decide how credible that “gold standard” is.
Taken from the purport of BG 8.28:
Prabhupada’s dictation: Therefore one should take chance of learning Bhagavt Gita from a devotee of Krsna. Not from mental speculators . This is called faith.
72 edition: Hearing the Gita from devotees, not from mental speculators, is called faith.
83 edition: One should therefore learn Bhagavad-gita from a devotee of Krsna, not from mental speculators. This is a sign of faith.
Prabhupada’s dictation: Then, when he is in search of such a devotee and fortunately gets the association of such devotee he actually begins to study and understand Bhagavat Gita.
72 edition: Through association of devotees, one is placed in devotional service, and by this service Krsna’s activities, form, pastimes, name, etc., become clear, and all misgivings are dispelled.
83 edition: When one searches for a devotee and fortunately gets a devotee’s association one actually begins to study and understand Bhagavad-gita.
Prabhupada’s dictation: By advancement of association of the devotee one is placed into devotional service and by performance of those devotional service , al his misgivings about Krsna or God His activities, His Form, His Pastimes, His Name, everything becomes clear.
72 edition: Through association of devotees, one is placed in devotional service, and by this service Krsna’s activities, form, pastimes, name, etc., become clear, and all misgivings are dispelled. (repeat of sentence above in 72 edition which addresses Prabhupada’s point here)
83 edition: By advancement in the association of the devotee one is placed in devotional service, and this service dispels all one’s misgivings about Krsna, or God, and Krsna’s activities, form, pastimes, name and other features.
Prabhupada’s dictation: And after perfect clearance of these misgivings one becomes fixed up in the study.
72 edition: Then once doubts are removed, the study of the Gita becomes extremely pleasurable, and one develops a taste and feeling for Krsna consciousness.
83 edition: After these misgivings have been perfectly cleared away, one becomes fixed in one’s study.
Prabhupada’s dictation: And by being fixed up in that way, he relishes the study of Bhagavat Gita and then he acquires his state of being of feeling always Krsna consciousness.
72 edition: Then once doubts are removed, the study of the Gita becomes extremely pleasurable, and one develops a taste and feeling for Krsna consciousness. (repeat of previous sentence above in 72 edition which addresses Prabhupada’s point here)
83 edition: Then one relishes the study of Bhagavad-gita and attains the state of feeling always Krsna conscious.
I would like to add a comment about Garuda Prabhu’s academic and worldly publication standards influenced view of resourcing Prabhupada’s manuscripts for revised books as being unethical to Prabhupada as an author. Prabhupada wasn’t writing a novel, nor anything of the sort. He was commenting on siddhanta. Therefore resourcing manuscripts to unearth the facts of what Prabhupada said on the most vital knowledge to mankind should be viewed as imperative. The idea of shunning such investigation in favor of retaining mundane literary moral considerations is a glaring lapse in good judgment. Prabhupada wasn’t one to be made a slave of misrepresentation.
The headline doesn’t match what is actually being said by Nrisimhananda Prabhu in the article itself – “SABHA is not working on a proposal to endorse gay marriage, says the Chairman” – did he actually say that? Where? Is it a quote or a paraphrase or what?
Assuming that he did say it, it still doesn’t matter because in the original article by Pancaratna Prabhu it was made clear that endorsing gay marriage would be a natural next step, in other words it was Pancaratna Prabhu’s projection of where it was all going, and that gay marriage is not a subject of the current SABHA discussion. So the headline addresses a strawman – that gay marriage is being discussed, but the main point – integration of homosexuals in ISKCON, is not being mentioned anywhere.
So instead of clarifying what is actually being discussed regarding LGBT, the bulk of the article addresses SABHA’s operations and independence, the points which were not even mentioned in the original article by Pancaratha Prabhu. In other words – another strawman, presented after calling Pancaratna Prabhu’s letter “fake news”.
That was my attempt at checking and double checking, and my conclusion is that it’s insanity all around and one cannot trust anybody’s words on anything. And now SABHA chairman got involved in this, too? God save us all. Is there any hope left?
Welcome to Kali-yuga, Prabhu! Quarrel and confusion. Fighting.
In an article I am working on, hopefully to be published here, let me give you a “sneak preview”. Here is what a godbrother wrote about female diksha gurus and the role of women in society. Quote: “BTW, daivi varnashrama means based on atma not deha [material body]. So anyone from any caste, Varna, or ashrama can do any service.”
Can you believe this rubbish? From a 75 year old disciple of Prabhupada? If what he wrote is correct, then, well, even the dogs, hogs, camels, and asses have material bodies! Is there no distinction between a human body and an animal body, or a male and a female body?
My understanding – stated time and again – is that these devotees – the “gender equality gang” – and hey, it’s a LARGE group – want to eliminate the distinction between males and females because today in urban, Western, egalitarian, feminist, Marxist influenced society and thought, well, it’s the popular outlook! They are more interested in being politically correct, and trying to prove it from some – not all – of Prabhupada’s statements, rather than accept the fact that Prabhupada propagated the “vedic system”, where there is not only gender discrimination and distinction, but separate roles in society for men and women. Stay tuned for that article: it’s “just now coming” and it will be “hard hitting” with no punches pulled!
Oh, Prabhu, please don’t punch anyone. I don’t think it helps to shock each other anymore. We, on all sides, have become immune to shock therapy.
I was just reading in the purport to Brihad Bhagavatamrita how nyaya logic is harsh (karkaśa), monistic Vedanta argument is solf (komala), and Bhakti argument is even softer (su-komala) – BB 2.2.223. I don’t even know how to understand this, but that’s what Sanatana Goswami writes there.
Pancaratna pr does say, ” same sex marriage proposal will soon follow.” He says it as a fact, not a projection or speculation. I don’t think “SABHA is not working on a proposal to endorse gay marriage” is in any way inaccurate. Moreover, the title of the article, “SABHA to recommend Gay Culture be integrated into ISKCON” is completely speculative. The SABHA members haven’t hardly begun to talk about the subject of LGBT what to speak of recommending anything. Pancaratna pr goes on to say,” Seems there are some that are intent on splitting ISKCON into further denominations.” Again, he is inserting himself into the minds of the SABHA members and making his own conclusion without the due process of fully discussing the topic. For example, he says that h “only I (Pancaratna pr) have written in the negative.” Our discussions had barely been online for a week. Just yesterday, another SABHA member shared similar “negative” reservations. Feels like Pancaratna pr was trying to head the discussion off at the pass by breaking the confidentiality agreement amongst the SABHA members. SABHA members need to be able to grind these subjects in a safe environment without the distractions of half-truths – in this case, no truth’s – inhibiting the natural progression of self-discovery in a group think. Don’t people recognize the need for human beings – anybody – to have trusted confidentiality in order to sort through things in life? Surely everyone has best friends or family with whom they share their inner thoughts, dilemmas, frustrations in order to get perspective. I’m just completely amazed at how quick is the tendency – amongst devotees no less – to jump on the criticism express in order to make themselves right. I really appreciate your attention to detail, and I would appreciate your looking at “SABHA is not working on a proposal to endorse gay marriage” as an appropriate response to Pancaratna’s statement that “same sex marriage proposal will soon follow.” It might! I don’t know what the SABHA will do. They may say, “gay marriage is not authorized by Srila Prabhupada, end of story.” Contrary to the idea that sharing how the SABHA operates is “another strawman,” I point to what Pancaratna pr writes, “So far men, women, gurus and Sannyasa have written, all approving the idea and encouraging” as if there is a homogeneous (forgive the inadvertent pun) agenda pervading the SABHA. I felt that it was important to emphasize that each members thinks for him/herself without pressure from any other group or leader. I also used the opportunity to emphasize the independently thoughtful behavior of the SABHA members. Perhaps you’re right that I seized the moment to clarify how the SABHA really operates. Frankly, the SABHA is made up of 28 individuals who have their own mind and realizations. Their votes determine whether proposals pass or fail. You may agree or disagree. They give it their best shot. Each of them is sincere as I believe are you and others who carry their own realizations. This is the system. Love it or leave it. Work within it and try to change it to harmonize with your own realizations or work outside of it and do the same. Those are our choices. I respect devotees on both sides of that aisle. Everyone of them is trying to serve Srila Prabhupada within their own capacity. There is “no loss or diminution” in the execution of devotional service.
Dear Nrisimhananda Prabhu, PAMHO AGTSP. I hope you are well and your projects coming along nicely.
According to Pancaratna Prabhu, who is a member of the the SABHA, the SABHA itself has recently been discussing integration of LGBT into ISKCON. Is that true, or not?
Your servant, Krishna-kirti Das
I’ve reviewed all the “shares” amongst the SABHA so far. Mainly, the members are sharing either their confusion, questions, and/or experiences. There was one or two mentions about what to do if a LGBTW person wants to live in the ashram. Mainly, the comments are the beginning of a rather long discussion that will meander as we all get familiar with the various arguments and positions. As far as “integration,” that term has not even entered the conversation though it may. It would need definition otherwise everyone will be talking about something different without realizing it. Questions like, “how to deal with a gay son or daughter,” “how to consider a person who is gay but celibate,” “can a gay devotee lead kirtan on street sankirtan,” etc. may all be brought up. Let’s see. There is no agenda in the discussion.
Thank you, Nrisimhananda Prabhu, this more or less clears things up. “Integration” can, indeed, mean very different things. Perhaps it should be “abandon gayness all ye who enter here”, or maybe “gays are welcome but initiation for them means lifelong celibacy” could be the principle on which integration is based, and “gays can get initiated just like everyone else” could be the opposite approach. Answers to gays leading kirtans, serving the deities, cooking etc will then take shape accordingly. I suppose for an Indian devotee of Pancaratna Prabhu’s age any favorable mention of gays being in ISKCON might sound categorically unacceptable, branded as “integration”, immediately lead to gay marriages, and trigger all sorts of alarm bells.
Instead it would happen in small incremental steps – go in like a needle, come out like a plow, as they say. This last sentence is meant to be a lighthearted comment.
Please accept my sincere apologies and humble obeisances if my earlier comment appeared offensive.
PS. What does “W” stand for in LGBTW? Even Google is confused on this, suggesting “Witches”, “Welsh”, and “Wondering” on the results page.
On a QWERTY keyboard, Q stands next to W. So I believe that’s just a typo for LGBTQ ( lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer ).
No, I believe W stands for “Wondering” – for people who can’t decide who they are sexually attracted to. Some say that this option is included in “queer”. Elsewhere they demand “+” to be added for all-inclusiveness.
I’m waiting for the settlement of our FDG usage – some try to change it to VDG to separate Vaishnavi Diksha Gurus from ordinary male diksha gurus who do not get to be called “vaishnavas” in this context. Maybe it will be VDG(f) and VDG(m). Then there will a discussion on how to properly address these VDG(f) – “guru” is a masculine form and feminine form is “gurvi”, and for “maharaja” feminine is “maharani”. Will it be “gurudeva” or “gurudevi”?
It’s a Pandora Box.
Yes, there are about a hundred ways to write LGBT + something. Some say the Q in LGBTQ stands for “questioning” also ( same meaning as “wondering” ).
Thank you, Prabhu Ji, for the further clarification. The main point is that you have been discussing how LGBTQ people might be practically included in ISKCON society and ashrams. That’s not fake news. You are in fact having that discussion in the SABHA. Pancharatna Prabhu and you differ on whether the fact that you are discussing this is a bad thing or a good thing — that’s also not fake news.
In order to better appreciate where Pancharatna Prabhu is coming from (I got to speak with him personally before publishing this, so I think this accurately reflects his perspective), let’s say that you have a 10 year old daughter, and that some grown man you have never in your life met or heard of before offers you some cash remuneration if he could be with your daughter all day, without your presence. Would you agree to it? And what if he said, “I will give you a phone so you can call any time you want to talk with her.” Would you agree then? I am pretty sure that the answer to both questions is a big NO! In fact, I bet you would not feel obliged to even have to reason with the man. It’s beyond the pale. He shouldn’t even be making the request, and the last thing you think you owe the man is an explanation. He doesn’t even deserve the time of day, does he? The point here is that certain things are just beyond the pale for discussion, and if you are discussing them at all it means they are no longer beyond the pale – you are seriously contemplating them. Why, for example, would anyone have a discussion about the practical aspects of starting a winery unless he had some desire or interest in doing so? He would be interested in doing just that – and that’s a problem right there.
So, in the same way with the discussion you are having about including LGBTQ people in ISKCON’s society, you are having the kind of conversation I seriously doubt Srila Prabhupada would have entertained. Srila Prabhupada always spoke with disdain when news of homosexual acts reached him, whether they were committed by non-devotees or his own disciples. He was unequivocal in his disapproval.
Add to this the fact that just last year senior ISKCON devotees in Brazil, with the blessings and support of their GBC and spiritual master [you know who] performed a same-sex wedding ceremony for two girls who are (allegedly) interested in Krishna consciousness. And also the fact that the international GBC took no action against it. And then there is the fact that there has been a small but influential group of ISKCON leaders who for at least 15 years have been pushing the envelope on gay marriage by talking about it, writing about it, and then actually conducting it. Given this history of gay activism in and around ISKCON, why would it be unreasonable to conclude that this is the direction that your group’s conversation on the SABHA is heading in?
That’s why I don’t think what Pancharatna Prabhu is saying can be called fake news. Nor do I think he can be faulted for jumping to unwarranted conclusions. We will probably continue to differ on this. But I think we should at least agree that Pancharatna Prabhu’s overall concerns are not baseless.
Your servant, Krishna-kirti Das
Prabhupada was perfectly aware that Kirtanananda and Hayagriva were gay according to accounts of the Mott Street associates of K and H during that period. Even if we didn’t have that hearsay, Prabhupada was aware of the condition of all of his “children.” Interestingly, he gave Kirtananda sanyas and married off Hayagriva. I, for one, do not support Vedic gay marriage. I’ll bet that most of the SABHA members don’t either, but I don’t know. Of course, we haven’t even gotten around to discussing gay marriage. We’re just bantering about the issue. Your example of the ten year old doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m must be dense. Of course we are going to discuss how gays are treated in Iskcon! We’re not in denial that gay people want to participate in Iskcon; they are already. Prabhupada was disgusted by any sex, so that’s not new. We are not talking about sex. We’re talking about people who have the bodily designation of “gay.” I don’t know anything about the incident in Brazil, but your bringing it to my attention is helpful. I will certainly inquire as to what the GBC did or did not do about it and let you know. That’s all part of our SABHA discussion. We are looking to get some clarity. I think the fear of “gay activism” in Iskcon may be due to some differences of opinions with various Iskcon personalities, but the SABHA has no such agenda. I don’t know where the discussion is heading, but we won’t be deterred by speculations and fear-mongering in our process. It will go where it goes. Then we can have a decent discussion based on its conclusions. Until then, the flow of free expression remains a vital element of discovery. it can’t be silenced by what if’s.
For your information, here is the news on last year’s ISKCON gay marriage: https://akincana.net/2019/08/03/iskcon-performs-the-first-hare-krishna-gay-marriage-cerimony-in-brazil/ (BTW, the same article and some others are available not only in Portuguese [the original language] and English but also in Hindi and Telugu.) We have several more articles on this topic as well.
“We’re just bantering about the issue. Your example of the ten year old doesn’t make any sense to me. I’m must be dense.” The point is that there are certain things that are beyond the pale of discussion. It’s why you won’t be having any discussion on the SABHA any time soon as to how you can accommodate pedophiles.That’s an issue you won’t be “bantering about” any time soon on SABHA (or would be repulsed if a few of you did start bantering it about).
“Prabhupada was perfectly aware that Kirtanananda and Hayagriva were gay according to accounts of the Mott Street associates of K and H during that period. Even if we didn’t have that hearsay, Prabhupada was aware of the condition of all of his “children.”:
I suggest that we stick to whatever we have as record that SP had said. Yes, we know he was aware that some of his disciples were homosexual by way of published correspondence he had with some. Otherwise, do we want to assume that Srila Prabhupada was also “perfectly aware” of the child abuse going on in his institution during the time he was present? I think not.
“Prabhupada was perfectly aware that Kirtanananda and Hayagriva were gay according to accounts of the Mott Street associates of K and H during that period. Even if we didn’t have that hearsay, Prabhupada was aware of the condition of all of his “children.” Interestingly, he gave Kirtananda sanyas and married off Hayagriva.”
What evidence is there that SP was aware of their homosexuality? I am not aware of any record, either something he said or some eye-witness testimony that he had said something that indicated his awareness. What if he wasn’t aware of it?
The article published here on the discussion in the Sabha is NOT “fake news”. It was reported by Sabha member, Pancharatna Das, who is TP of ISKCON Jaipur, and Chairman of the ISKCON India Advisory Committee, constituted by the ISKCON India Governing Council (aka “Bureau”).
Here is what he wrote – that was published here, and is being commented on by Sabha Chairman Nrsimhananda Prabhu:
Pancaratna Dasa
Jan 15, 2020, 8:41 AM (6 days ago)
Now the latest topic of the Sabha is integrating LGBT. Lesbians homosexuals bisexuals and transgender people into iskcon. The Sabha are discussing and will work on a proposal to the GBC at a later stage.
Of course not many will maintain celibacy and will need to get married, so same sex marriage proposal will soon follow.
So far men, women, gurus and Sannyasis have written, all approving the idea and encouraging. Only I have written in the negative.
Seems there are some that are intent on splitting iskcon into further denominations. Maybe ISKCON West and ISKCON East. It’s going that way. How can you get a win win without compromising everything. I feel we need to make a strong stand here with one voice.
Your servant pancaratna dasa