so would this be he equiv. of evangelical christianity for many brown hindus?

Really interesting piece, Abhi. Honestly, the secular, liberal humanist in me -- the part that disdains religion and sees it as another way that people create artificial distinctions between themselves -- is the knee-jerk reaction that comes to the fore at the sight of rituals and white Hare Krishnas. For example, I started laughing as the white pandit mispronounced Sanskrit words. I'd always dismissed Hare Krishnas as deluded white hippy kids out to spend daddy's money on their idealist vision of a future that involves love and a whle lot of chanting.

I'm less judgemental now. On the other hand, and more importantly, I saw in the video a somewhat multi-cultural group sharing a sense of community and identity. I saw diaspora Hindus welcomed into an established community. That was cool. It's not like anyone ever really established a community for my family when we came here.

Anyone know what the Hare Krishna movement is like in India?

so would this be he equiv. of evangelical christianity for many brown hindus?

Dude, I don't even understand what this question means, since you leave the parameter for _equivalence_ ambiguous. Evangelical Christianity to me is about conservative ideology, moral judgements and proselytizing. Is your question whether these elements exist within Hare Krishnas? I've always thought as Hare Krishnas as less aggressive and more welcoming than groups like the RSS and VHP. Anyway, please explain what your question was actual asking.

anyone have anything to say about the scandals of the hare krishnas?

evangelical xtians tend to appeal to those who want moorings & are "unrooted" from their traditional background, and yet want something somewhat "familiar" and "friendly."

as for the characterization of evangelical christianity, in the USA it is generally politically conservative, but black evangelical christianity obviously is not. in regards to race it is clearly liberal in proslyetization, attempting to convert any and all. this is my impression of krishnas, as opposed to the majority of hindu groups. also, my understanding is the the krishnas are rather moralistic, and, they have had the same problems with abuse of power that many tightly organized evangelical christian groups have had.

also, please note in the broad historical sense evangelical christianity is often radical and non-conservative. this is a minor quibble, but outside of the united states this is an important point.

finally, in regards to religion, i think i will state a few background assumptions i hold

1) i roughly hold to a nomimal view as to whether individual x is member of religion y. if they say they are, i'll take their word for it, since i don't think religions are derived as constructs from first principles.

2) but many "higher" religions do assert that they are constructed from first principles. e.g., islam derives from the shahada and the koran, buddhism from the 4 noble truths and the canon (pali, etc.). even religions which are more organic, like hinduism, generated their own systematic theologies (e.g., sankara).

3) but this is an institutional overlay upon basal cognitive religiosity, which is generally the same. for example, even though muslims and hindus espouse belief in very different god(s) (some hindus would disagree with this, but let's ignore that) on a psychological level i hold that the god-concept is fundamentally the same, and, that that god concept doesn't really offer an equivalence with the dominant monistic conceptions of hinduism or the omni-personal god of islam.

4) but, of course the creeds and confessions are important in demarcating boundaries, and believers avow that they are very important (even if the trinity is a mystery, or mutazillite rationalization of god is impossible psychologically just as 6-dimensional space is in the mind's eye).

back to how this relates to hare krishnas:evangelical christianity, i am attempting to establish a social and psychological correspondence between these two subsets within their overall religious matrix, hinduism and christianity. i obviously know a lot about evangelical christianity compared to hare krishnaism, ergo, if i can establish an analogy that gives me "information for free" about the latter derived from the former. evangelical christianity seems to be a particular flavor of christianity, anti-institutional, personalized, somewhat anti-intellectual (e.g., lack of interest in greek philosophy as it relates to theology), uprooted from time & place, etc. within the spectrum of christian religions. socially and psychologically i believe evangelical xtians exhibit some general tendencies. i think won buddhists in korea, sokka gakkai in japan, are similarly socially and psychologically even if "jesus" is replaced by the amitabh buddha or what not. within islam some of the groups like the muslim brotherhood are not too different from evangelical christianity in my opinion (despite their nomimal "salafi" orientation they do a LOT of radical reinterpretation of islam to make it relevant to the modern world). so, my question is simply whether broadly speaking hare krishnas fill the same "slot" within the spectrum of hinduisms.

this of course assumes that there isn't a fundamental psychological difference in religious outlooks, which some here disagree with. that's fine.

on a more american level, there is a strong tendency for non-protestant religions to "protestantize." a survey of believing american catholics shows that their own beliefs about god and religion tend to match their protestant peers in this country, not catholics worldwide. similarly, american reform and conservative judaism are peculiar american movements (reform started in germany, but obviously it does not flourish there now) which are sometimes ridiculed as "christianity with curly hair." i have been seeing in muslims too a tendency to simply rework their faith in a protestant american framework, even if they avow that no, this is the "real islam" (e.g., there a casual switch from the dominant predestinarianism of sunni islam toward a more free will orientation in the discourse). so my prediction (which i have made before on this weblog) is that hinduism will generate its own form of "protestantism" to keep up in the american marketplace of religions. either that, or it will become a minority belief among brown americans who over the generations convert to christianity or become nonreligious (this has happened to japanese americans, even though the "buddhist church of america" has tried to compete).

#4 wuz in respone #2.

Anyone know what the Hare Krishna movement is like in India?

:The number ISKON temples are less in india as compared to U.S, but there most interesting aspect have been the akshaya patra movement where is it provides mid-day meals to children studying in government schools located in poor localities. Big part of the funding for this program comes from indian private corporates. In its 3rd year it is already reaching out to around 400,000 children.

This is nothing new. Growing up in Detroit, my parents went to (and still go to) the Hare Krishna/Iskon temple on the regular. I'm no fan of religion and am agnostic now, but as a child, i learned much, made friends and found many wonderful things by going to the Hare Krishna temple with them - in Detroit, it is the gorgeous old Fisher family mansion, so to a child, it was something to behold and explore. They feed the poor and do wonders for the blighted (largely black) neighborhood surrounding them.

The racial mix is quite even between Indians, blacks and whites. All of whom (at the Detroit temple) are truly wonderful people. Lots of sordid scandals to be sure (all religious movements attract the nefarious along with the believers - hello Catholic molesting priests!), but thankfully not at our Detroit temple.

Only recently have all the competing Hindu Temples been established, so that desis have more than the Hare Krishna temple to go to - but many many brown folks still go on the regular.

I lived on Watseka for some time also, what I'm curious about is, do the Indian members go into airports, beaches, and other public venues to convert.

I lived on Watseka for some time also, what I'm curious about is, do the Indian members go into airports, beaches, and other public venues to convert.

I have seen Hare Krishna devotees in Laguna Beach and Santa Monica's 3rd street promenade in california on just about every weekend evening. They usually either sing and dance in one spot or walk around with a drum. I haven't seen active recruiting or conversion. I like that about them..they seem to welcome you if you go to them yourself. There doesn't seem to be an active quota that they have to fill, but I could be wrong.

The ISKON temple in Nairobi, Kenya had a predominantly indian population. I wonder if ISKON has a missionary system too?

Note to reporter: When writing an article about Hinduism it is not necessary to describe a woman saving an ant. We get it already.

LOL.. well said.. the reporter seems to be a "hindutva" supporter..If the reporter is of anti-hindutva leanings he/she would have found that lady in the saree stamping on the ant to kill it (Goddess Kali like..) :-)

From my experience, LA ISKCON people usually pounce on Indians (the opening line I usually get is, "This is the Bhagavad Gita, your parents might know about it") or blonde actresses (or wannabe actresses). I don't think they have an official missionary system, but each temple in my book is a de facto missionary.

ISKCON has a very checkered past, reading about Keith Ham will make most people's blood curdle. This shouldn't dissuade anyone from joining the organization, but people should at least be aware of it. Many of the Gaudian (sp?) Vaishnava Indians I know are actually in a movement called IRM (Iskcon revival movement) that doesn't recognize the old leadership, the GBC, and seeks to reconnect with Prabhupads original vision.

A post here when I'm supposed to be working is no place to describe the history of the Hare Krishna movement in the West or to explore in detail its relationship to Hinduism at large or the Indian immigrant community in America or elsewhere outside India. If anyone is really interested there are websites, but even better, about a shelf worth of books in any decent university research library.

As for razib's questions re comparison with evangelical xtians:

The Hare Krishna movement is a branch of a Vaisnava sampradaya that includes Caitanya Mahaprabhu who lived in West Bengal in the 15th century. Devotees in that lineage believe that Mahaprabhu is the yuga-avatara, Krishna Himself, descended to teach the yoga method for Kali yuga, which is chanting the names of Krishna, specifically the maha-mantra "Hare Krishna Hare Krishna...". Mahaprabhu therefore brought an evangelical element to "Hinduism" because he taught that anyone can become a Vaisnava (through the bhakti-yoga purifacatory process) and that a Vaisnava is beyond such caste distintions as brahmana, etc. Mahaprabhua and the gurus following him encouraged missionary activity and therefore Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada came to America in 1965. The basics of the philosophy and practices are the same as practised in the traditional Gaudiya Vaisnava communities of West Bengal, Orissa, and the Braj area of Uttar Pradesh.

razib: "evangelical xtians tend to appeal to those who want moorings & are "unrooted" from their traditional background, and yet want something somewhat "familiar" and "friendly.""

In the early days the Krishna movement attracted the margins as you suggest, many from the hippy movement, looking for a religious path but frustrated with the limited theology of Christianity. However, these days the movement is as likely to attract the college educated and non-marginalized.

Part of this is that in the early days the movement was "cultish" in the sense that the pressure was on to basically become a monk and live and work full time in the community. These days, as suggested by the article, it is much more common for members to live and work outside the community, while those who choose to live as monks conduct the Deity worship and do most of the missionary work.

Members of the Indian community who worship at ISKCON temples usually do not become full-time monk-like members, although it happens on occassion.

razib: "generally politically conservative"

Krishna devotees consider abortion murder, as they do believe life starts at conception. Some are opposed to "feminism" supporting instead a "Vedic" patriarchal view, but this is much debated. They are moralistic in that they do not condone sex outside marriage or intoxication of any kind. But they also don't support military violence or any ism that rests on identification with the temporary body, such as nationalism. If you ask a devotee, he'll probably tell you that Vaisnava philosophy and practice transcends the artificial political spectrums.

razib: "they have had the same problems with abuse of power that many tightly organized evangelical christian groups have had."

Yes. Lots of problems. In ISKCON's defense, they have tried to work through these and reform themselves in various ways. Some remain unsatisfied, but the self-criticism has been noted enough that some anti-cult groups no longer consider the HK community a cult as self-criticism and reform are not part of the technical definition of a cult.

razib: "but many "higher" religions do assert that they are constructed from first principles. e.g., islam derives from the shahada and the koran, buddhism from the 4 noble truths and the canon (pali, etc.). even religions which are more organic, like hinduism, generated their own systematic theologies (e.g., sankara)."

The HK community falls in this category. They identify with a specific tradition and specific orthodoxies, including a tradition of interpretation of the Bhagavad-gita, the Bhagavat Purana, and various Upanishads.

razib: "if i can establish an analogy that gives me "information for free" about the latter derived from the former...."

I think this is a largely useless way to gain infomation. After you know something about the HK tradition then maybe you can do a nice compare/contrast, but it won't teach you anything, really, about the HK movement.

But for sake of discussion, the HK movement is not anti-institutional, in fact they are very attached to the institution, ISKCON, that Prabhupada established and seek to keep it the way he wanted it (much internal debate on what this means). It is personalized as they believe in the guru-shishya principle and thus a personal relationship with a guru and with Krishna Himself. A personal relationship with Krishna is in fact the distinguishing character of Gaudiya Vaisnava theology as opposed to Sankara, etc. However, it is not anti-intellectual as they are intensely interested in the philosophical basis of the theology and detailed study of the textual tradition is the norm (jokes about mispronunciation aside, many Krishna devotees study Sanskrit and Bengali especially to facilitate this). They are however "anti-empirical" to some extent, preferring "perfect" revelation as appears in scripture to the limitations and imperfections of the senses.

As for uprooted from time and place, there is an element of this. The term white-Hindu is probably a good enough example.

As for the contention that Americans bring prostentatism to their understanding of non-protestant faiths, there might be some truth to that. For example many HK devotees kind of conflate the ideas of karma and paapa (ie. things that bring bad karma) with the Christian idea of sin, and the tradition of Vaisnava humility wherein one sees oneself as fallen and as being saved by guru and Krishna is somewhat akin to the "born again" idea. (But then brahamanas are called dvija, the twice-born, in the Vedas, so who stole what from whom...)

--------------

Just a side note, there is now a world-wide community of second-generation Hare Krishna kids, several thousand strong, mostly white, who grew up with Vaisnava philosophy and lifestyle. We wore dhotis and saris everyday while growing up, ate dal chaval subji chapati kichari halava pakoras samosas rasagulas jalebis, learned Sanskrit and Bengali prayers while young (and yes, we can pronounce it correctly), know the Mahabharata and Ramayana, and many of us lived in India sometimes for years in ISKCON gurukulas, can speak some Hindi or Bengali, might have studied Indian classical music or dance, and then, now grown up, don't have much to do on a daily basis with ISKCON, but have an affinity for Indian culture and enjoy our Bollywood or Nitin Sawhney or Vikram Seth and... lurking on sites like Sepia Mutiny. Go figure.

---------------

A question for Indian people who come to the Krishna temples: The Vaisnava tradition of Mahaprabhu from West Bengal and Orissa is traditionally called Gaudiya as, I'm told, the people there had a nice fair complexion and/or Mahaprabhu himself is described as being "golden".

Of course, I know what a "gaudi" is in Hindi.

So when white HK devotees talk about the Gaudiya Vaisnava tradition, or Gauranga Mahaprabhu, or, as we say in one prayer, the "gauda bhakta vrinda", does anyone else think there might be some kind of joke hidden in there?

Assuming all stereotypes of white = racists, maybe white people couldn't become devotees of Krishna (lit. black) until He appeared as Gauranga (lit. golden). Ha Ha.

Former Krishna Kid: thanks for this. fascinating perspective.

peace

Of course, I know what a "gaudi" is in Hindi.

What is gaudi in hindi?

It seems like another way for our culture to be hijacked and reissued in a form we are no longer responsible for.

Gautham, if this is the sort of unreflective and righteous comment you produce, perhaps there is a reason you get deleted!

for the record, i might have agreed with you a few years ago when i was more "hardcore" of an atheist. i felt that "new" religions, or religions adapted to new environments, weren't as "authentic." i think part of this was social conditioning, and part my fixation on an idea of religions as a set of rules and regulations with atemporal relevance (these are easier for an atheist to rebutt after all), but i've moved on. i think it is pretty obvious that hinduism as it is in india isn't really going to be recapitulated in the USA in its exact form. it hasn't in trinidad or mauritius either. in some ways the krishna movement might be more in keeping with the american culture of browns. the whole point of the article is that the krishna movement is becoming more brown in the USA, so if "we" is brown, responsibility is being transferred.

HMF, i have often been told by krishna devotees (all white, many eastern european where i live) that "this is my culture" as they run me down :)

Gautham, if this is the sort of unreflective and righteous comment you produce, perhaps there is a reason you get deleted!

Seriously man. Is it really so hard to understand why your comments are so often unwelcome here?

Former Krishna Kid,
Thanks for that comment. I learned a lot. And dont worry about the comment about "pronounciation". Majority of Indians dont know any Sanskrit at all. Those who make jokes on non-Indian's pronouciations should look in the mirror once in a while.

And yeah, you probably know more Hindi than those making jokes about pronounciation. Isnt that ironic?

Anyways, thanks for the comment. A few years of my teen years I lived in an area where there was a nice ISCKON temple. I used to see the devotees and their chants but I never made an effort to find out what the Hare Krishna movement was about (frankly, I never had the time from a very strict academic life and related pressures) so I really welcome your prespective.

former krishna kid, tx for your comment too. very informative. might post some follow up ? after work.

It is my personal belief that such attempted conversions are not part of the Hindu ethic.

The concept of conversion is definitely alien to hinduism and the HK's do seem to be modeled much more on christianity than hinduism. They go around saying things like Krishna is the *only* way! Hindus do not exclude or include on the basis of belief in god so a concept such as conversion seem illogical under the circs. I find it easier to relate to the HK's as some sort of a monotheistic caste of hinduism and that's the only way they make any sense to me. Every caste has its own wierdness (some much more than others) and from that perspective they fit right in.

For all the HK's in the west there are many, many hindus who practice the traditional versions of hinduism. I don't think the HK style will become the defining or mainstream genre of hinduism. There will always be first genners in the west, plus there are many westerners (and indians) who find the HK style corny. Plus the yoga explosion in the US is finally beginning to shift the focus from doctrine to practice, and this is the first time that the indologist-style hinduism is being challenged by the real thing. So I wouldn't be too sure about saying that the HK style will be the future of hinduism in the west. At least no more than what we've already lost through the colonization - that is hindus too have become belief oriented.

but I have been constantly questioned in relation to it, since the Hare-Krishnas have until recent years been the most "visible" group of Hindu affiliation. I simply do not believe in prostyletizing by any religion, and I myself have been approached by Hare Krishnas is hopes of interesting me in their faith. It is my personal belief that such attempted conversions are not part of the Hindu ethic.

i suspect that if india had not been dominated by muslims who make proslyetizing efforts of other religions forbidden for 1,000 years the hindu norm on this issue might be different. my exp. is that jews and hindus both have a visceral dislike of conversion and seem personally affronted by prosleytization, but prior to 300 CE jews did accept converts and were a missionary religon. what happened in 300? soon after christianity became the dominant, and later official, religion of the roman empire, and conversion to judaism was forbidden on pain of death, and retribution was often communal (there is a whole literature on this topic, and this was specifically why jewish ownership of christian slaves was banned, as the latter would often convert to judaism, or be suspected of this). similarly, within the dar al islam conversion to islam is encouraged, but there is a tendency to be discourage conversionary efforts of non-muslims, and an absolute ban on attempts to convert muslims. india was, like it or not, part of the dar-al-islam, more or less, for 1,000 years. before muslims came to india it seems clear that central asian and other groups were assimilated and converted to the hindu religion. the ahoms of assam, even after 1000, became defends of hindu religion and culture despite their burmese origins (against the muslims!). also, much of southeast asia was hindu before 1000. this is not because it was indigenously hindu, but cultural influence and conversion of elites occurred. the balinese are the remnants of this, but java and the khmer empire were hindu. in vietnam there is a group of people called the chams who are saivite hindus. they seem to emigrated from indonesia when that region was predominantly hindu.

i point this out because assertions of "hinduism is X" or "islam is Y" are often valid for particular times and places. i also think it is relevant for american hindus and jews, because their own norms clash with the dominant protestant ethos of religion by choice and not birth (nearly 1/3 of americans change denomination in their life last i checked). muslims also need to acknowledge the norms of this nation, because they often come form a nation where conversionary attempts aimed at muslims is forbidden, while those by muslims was encouraged.

p.s. i grew up small town america as well. everyone assumed i was hindu and the english teacher "consulted" me on the bhagavad gita and ramayana. life is about misunderstandings sometimes....

The concept of conversion is definitely alien to hinduism

is this what is called 'essentializing'? :) i think it is arguable that it is not typical of hinduism, but alien seems too strong of a word (see my last post). here is a use of alien i think is more apropos: worshipping a statue of muhammad is alien to islam. i don't think prosleytization, exclusism and hinduism are that disengaged as the example i provided.

and the HK's do seem to be modeled much more on christianity than hinduism. They go around saying things like Krishna is the *only* way!

The central problem with the ISKCON interpretation of the Gita is its taking the Gita's usage of words like "aham" (I), "mama" (my), "maam" (me) too literally, as the Krishna with the blue hue, flute, son of Devaki and so forth. So the ISKCON scholars point to verses like,

"He who knows Me-the birthless, the beginningless, and the great Lord of the worlds, he, the undeluded one among mortals, becomes freed from all sins. " BG 10.3

and say, "it's not my words, there it is, Krishna saying 'he who knows Me!!" So therefore, Bramha, Siva, Ganesha etc are all demigods and can only get you so far, etc. etc.. " It's a narrow interpretation, and thats where the Christian parallels are drawn. (ie Christ is the only way) But the ISKCON "conversion" certainly differs from Christian conversion, Christians genuinely believe they are saving you when converting you. Actually preventing you from being eternally barbecued. I'm not sure if ISKCON followers believe in an similar notions - I dont believe Keith Ham did, and he was central to establishing ISKCON's north american stronghold, "New Vrindavan." and more importantly, central to establishing the "conversion" policies throughout ISKCON.

I am HORRIBLY busy today and will come back to comment later, but

Conversion is not alien to Hinduism, merely historically rare, much as it is in Judaism----Heliodorus, a Hellenic Ambassador to an Indian court, converted to the worship of Vasudev (Krishna) in ancient times-- ~O BCE +/- 300. In Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's own times one of His dearest devotees was Haridas Thakur, raised a Muslim. Personally, I find it mildly offensive bordering on racist to assert that non desis (remember there are plenty of Bangladeshi Gaudiya Vaishnavs, not to mention Nepali, Sri Lankan, Pakistani and Balinese Hindus) cannot convert to Hinduism. And I do not find it any stranger that having done so, they or their children might also adapt the cultural trappings of Hinduism, much as Christian Indians often wear dresses and suits to church. Moreover, considering the extreme importance of ritual in Vaishnavism, it is simply easier to adopt clothes and food. Even I dress slightly differently and cook slightly differently when I'm doing it in a more religious context, without undesifying myself one way or the other.

Remember the desh, and Hindusim, are incredibly diverse, and just b/c something is new to you it isn't inauthentic.

Dammit, I'm going to block the Mutiny. But HMF--that is not an Iskcon thing. That is a Vaishnav thing. It's not even a Gaudiya Vaishnav thing, it is an all Vaishnav thing. Don't point the finger at Iskcon scholars and make it sound like some new fangled American interpretation. That is the interpretation of Madhvacharya, Vallabhacharya, Nimbarkacharya, Ramanujacharya, and Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. A good argument can be made that it is also the final conclusion of Sakaracharya, see his Govinda prayers. Newsflash: there are different ways to intepret Sanskrit and Vedas. And I kind of resent my whole way--and the way of SO MANY HINDUS---being termed a "problem."

You also completely and totally exxagerate the role of Keith Ham in North America, or New Vrndavan for that matter, and it's ludicrous to conflate hundreds and thousands of years of the worship of Krishna as Bhagavan with him.

I am HORRIBLY busy today and will come back to comment later, but

Dammit, I'm going to block the Mutiny.

Don't block us :)
I was looking for you to set some of the commenters straight.

Dammit, I'm going to block the Mutiny. But HMF--that is not an Iskcon thing. That is a Vaishnav thing. It's not even a Gaudiya Vaishnav thing, it is an all Vaishnav thing. Don't point the finger at Iskcon scholars and make it sound like some new fangled American interpretation. That is the interpretation of Madhvacharya, Vallabhacharya, Nimbarkacharya, Ramanujacharya, and Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

I'd like to see sources. Because as far as I know, the only place the word "demigod" is used is in Bhagavad Gita as it is, not Ramanuja's Gitabhashya, or any of the other commentaries on the Gita. To say all Vaishnavas have the same interpretation of the Gita is outlandish.

And I'm not sure what history you've been reading or taught, but Keith Ham WAS the palace of gold. It was his idea, his vision, he built it by raising funds in unscrupulous ways. Like I said, not to dissuade anyone from going there, but people should know its history. And you kinda missed my point, I wasn't conflating 1000s of years of Krishna worship with him, but ISKCON as you know it today wouldn't exist were it not for him.

Thanks for setting me straight

is this what is called 'essentializing'? :) i think it is arguable that it is not typical of hinduism, but alien seems too strong of a word (see my last post).

Well, if we can redefine all hindu concepts to fit in with the protestant norm, then what you say makes sense. Otherwise it simply does not. Conversion to xtianity for instance means that you no longer perform idol worship, that you do not hold mohammad to be god's representative, that you believe the Christian god created the world. There is no equivalent of conversion to hindusim in this respect. You can still believe in jesus, and mohammad and allah and declare you don't know who created the world or how and for what reason. You are not forbidden to practice your earlier beliefs and neither were "hindu" beliefs ever closed to you. So what exactly does "conversion" to hinduism mean?

Anyway, this is quite typical of how such arguments go - although hinduism doesn't have a founder, or a specific holy book, or a prophet, it is nevertheless a religion. The JC religions however, would cease to be religions if they did not have the Koran or Mohammad for instance. Hindus are made to force fit JC concepts in places where they don't fit. Calling it alien is not essentializing this at all. The whole thing is as alien as alien can be. The only reason it does not seem alien is because the JC perspective is considered a universal norm. Nobody stops to think that conversion and religion make no logical sense in the hindu framework.

Re your other post, Hindus definitely lived in fear of muslims, but even prior to muslim rule there was no conversion. They had a method of debate - between Hindus and Buddhists, and between hindus of the various schools of hinduism. If you lost the debate you were supposed to declare your opponent's position valid. Sometimes, the entire lineage would "convert" in this respect. But this was mostly an intellectual thing and not a popular form of conversion. As for hinduism's spread to the far east and indonesia - there is no evidence that it was due to conversion attempts. The Inca empire spread in much the same way, on the strength of its intrinsic value, its knowledge, art, etc.

That is the interpretation of Madhvacharya, Vallabhacharya, Nimbarkacharya, Ramanujacharya, and Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.

i know. i know. i am so going to hell.

Conversion to xtianity for instance means that you no longer perform idol worship

roman catholic statuary is pretty close to idol worship.

he Inca empire spread in much the same way, on the strength of its intrinsic value, its knowledge, art, etc.

this is a quibble, but really, the inca was a militaristic autocracy.

roman catholic statuary is pretty close to idol worship.

True. But they don't call it that. I read a very interesting (spiritual) history of xtianity. It's like reading a history of the indictment of idol worship. That is usually the first accusation made against a sect. Anyway, for some reason it came as a huge solace to me that xtians do not denounce only hindus regarding this. They do it to each other all the time and have been doing it since the conception of xtianity.

Don't know much about the incas other that what I discovered trekking in the region. They were supposed to be good guys and our guide gave me that tidbit of information. Anyway, a good autocracy is better than a bad democracy.

True. But they don't call it that.

wutz in a word? i believe that the portuguese did not destroy some representations of brahma-vishnu-shiva because they mistook it for the trinity when they arrived in india. i think that says it all.

w

utz in a word?

Rivers of blood.

Rivers of blood.

this is true, but i believe we should distinguish perception of substance from genuine substance. the former is not irrelevant, but it does not map perfectly onto to the latter. the way you make claims about hinduism suggests to me that you simply disregard the possibility that self-perception ("i accept the nicene creed," "i am a monist") might be purely nominal and tribal, as opposed to reflecting genuine substantive disagreemants ("there are 4 billion indians" vs. "there are one billion indians"). this matters because people may self-perceive themselves in one way ("i am a muslim" or "i am a hindu") and yet not substantively be that different in how they view religious issues. similarly, and this is important, one may self-perceive in the same way as someone else, and be substantively very different. this last case is the one you seem to reject in that your normative definitions for what hinduism is seems to be the last word in your mind, when i hold that there are many ways that people can be hindu because it is just a name.

By that logic, it would make even less sense for HK's to adopt indian customs and culture that weren't expressly Hindu

i tend to follow the general thrust of the "desi" (brown) identity that the bloggers her espouse, even if we disagree in the details. but, that does not mean that i personally am surprised or irritated when other people have other perceptions of brownness, so long as they aren't imposing that upon me. to give you an example, i reject the contention that hindus must be brown or that browns must be hindu (or are hindu), but i don't get angry or irritated if others feel personally that browns must be hindu or that hindus must be brown. when i get irritated is when these individuals cross the line and point to someone else and say, "you are violating my norms and values, buzz off!"

names and categories are powerful and often meaningful. but we musn't lose perspective about their subjectivity.

(f**k, i sound like a postmodernist!)

Re your other post, Hindus definitely lived in fear of muslims, but even prior to muslim rule there was no conversion. They had a method of debate - between Hindus and Buddhists, and between hindus of the various schools of hinduism. If you lost the debate you were supposed to declare your opponent's position valid. Sometimes, the entire lineage would "convert" in this respect. But this was mostly an intellectual thing and not a popular form of conversion. As for hinduism's spread to the far east and indonesia - there is no evidence that it was due to conversion attempts. The Inca empire spread in much the same way, on the strength of its intrinsic value, its knowledge, art, etc.

But this is all very ancient history. Modern Hindu organizations like the Arya Samaj formally convert people and they've been doing so since the beginning of this century, and the RSS re-converts people, particlarly tribals. They view it - rightly or wrongly - as a crucial ingredient for survival in the marketplace of religions - yes, dominated by Christian categories, but that be the reality of the world we live in.

WOW. There's way too much to comment on, but let me just say that after reading the level of discussion here, I am considering leaving the Hare Krishnas and joining the Sepia Mutiny Samaj full time. How's the food? :-)

Abhi -- thanks for posting this and for your comments.

Former Krishna Kid -- This is great stuff... thorough, honest, and eloquent. I've always found it fascinating how "desi" non-Indian Krishna kids can be... like being totally up on Bollywood, Indian fashion, dance, sports, etc. When I was growing up, the desi devotee kids ("congregation kids") and the gurukulis kind of kept a distance. Of course, I think that that is really changing these days, though-- thank God! BTW, were you at Mela?

Saheli -- Rock on! You are my hero.

HMF -- Thanks for your feedback. I'm sorry if Krishna devotees have "pounced on you" in the past-- people, religious or not, lacking social tact and getting in your face is always a drag. I don't think, though, that speaks to the majority of Hare Krishna devotees. As for Hare Krishna interpretations of the Gita being uniquely narrow-minded, the whole tradition of bhasya and tika implies that different schools and acaryas will read the text in a certain way, and defend it. Nothing surprising there. The BG edition that Hare Krishna devotees use was written by Swami Prabhupada and based on earlier commentraies by Baladeva Vidybhusana, Visvanath Chakravarti, Sridhara Svami, Madhva, and in some places Ramanuja. In fact, talk to a Madhva (Dvaita-vada) scholar some time, and they will probably tell you that the Hare Krishna movement's edition is not exclusive enough. By the way, Ramanujacarya never used the word demigod in his bhasya... primarily because he wasn't writing in English. Now, you can choose to fault him for that, but I think he was just keeping it Brown. ;-)

Oh, and on the subject of Keith Hamm... I agree that his deviations and scandals should be looked at. Perhaps you might want to also consider the Hare Krishna movement's response to him: they excommunicated him, cooperated with authorities in making sure that legal wrongs were addressed, and helped to put in place reforms and safeguards against abuses of power. The Hare Krishna movement, and even the New Vrindavan Community, is and always was a lot more than just Keith Hamm.

Hairy D -- Funniest comment ever.

~ Radhe Radhe ~

By the way, Ramanujacarya never used the word demigod in his bhasya... primarily because he wasn't writing in English. Now, you can choose to fault him for that, but I think he was just keeping it Brown. ;-)

Oh you're one clever fellow. He also didn't use any derogatory connotation when speaking of "deva" - in fact, most other texts translate "deva" as celestial body. Whether you choose to admit it or not, demigod is a derogatory term. The fact remains, ISKCON chooses to interprete the references to "me, my, and I" in the BG as Krishna, blue skin, flute, son of devaki - that physical (and perhaps historical) entity And not a metaphor for larger concept of bramhan, paramatman, etc, that tends to occupy most other interpretations. This is their problem, and can only give rise to inherent close-mindedness.

Excommunication (there's another co-opted Christian behavior) is fine, I'd expect nothing less (he is in a federal pen doing 20), but lets not mince words here, Prabhupad as I understand it, was never for large scale message spreading, building large centers, aggressive recruitment etc... This was introduced by Mr. Ham.

Hi DesiDasa, I was at the Mela :)
browny_d: you are certainly a worthy accharya

A couple of things I was thinking about today after my post in regards to HK, Hinduism, and conversion and after reading the above:

Caitanya Mahaprabhu lived at a time when Sufi mystics especially were winning conversions to Islam, or so I've read. Supposedly, where the Mughal sword didn't work, the Sufi saints evident devotion, etc., impressed a lot of people especially when contrasted to the prideful brahmanas many of whom were corrupt. So a Hindu reform movement that disregarded caste and taught an essential mystery of divine love (Radha Krishna) and how to experience it oneself, might have been influenced by this. So maybe the spirit of conversion was borrowed from Islam. Just an idea that would need a real scholar to research, etc. Also, orthodox followers of Mahaprabhu would reject this thesis because as an avatar of Krishna his actions are not historically contingent.

Second, the predecessor gurus of ISKCON were members of the Bengali intelligensia during the Hindu reform days that also brought the Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj, etc. Some of this reform is seen as a response to British missionary criticism of Hinduism, e.g. you have no book -- yes we do the Bhagavad gita; you have many gods -- no we don't we have Brahman of which all gods are manifestation (or Krishna if you're a personalist). So maybe some influences came from Christianity in that sense. Again a thesis that needs research, and again that orthodox followers would reject.

Someone asked why the Indian clothes and the Indian food, etc. You're right, you can be a devotee of Krishna and wear Western clothes and eat Western food, etc. There's no need to embrace Indian things per se. I think it's a combination of a search for "authenticity", the fact that Indian vegetarian food is the best in the world, and a desire of HK devotees to reject Western consumer culture and embrace something older traditional and perhaps, yes, cooler.

And HMF, I think you're overstating the influence of Keith Ham. In the West Virginia community, yes, but not elsewhere.

As for "devas" interpretation, aren't their branches of Saivism that see him as the Supreme and the other devas as his creation and agents? I think the Vaisnavas have done the same thing with Visnu or Krishna. There's Bhagavan, and then there's the controlling deities of Bhagavan's creation, like Indra Vayu, etc. Anyway, some read the Bhagavad-gita literally as Krishna saying worship Him as the source of all the devatas, some read it allegorically or metaphorically. But the HK community didn't start the literal personal interpretation, that's all.

It's been a pleasure. Peace to all mutineers.

people may self-perceive themselves in one way ("i am a muslim" or "i am a hindu") and yet not substantively be that different in how they view religious issues. similarly, and this is important, one may self-perceive in the same way as someone else, and be substantively very different. this last case is the one you seem to reject in that your normative definitions for what hinduism is seems to be the last word in your mind, when i hold that there are many ways that people can be hindu because it is just a name.

Self perception, for whatever it may be worth, is not of much interest to me. Usually, people just learn to say I am hindu, I am muslim and there is not much more behind it. I'm not saying it's not important, just that it is not interesting to me. I am interested in general principles and perhaps that is why you get the sense that I belive all hindus are the same but this is so not how I think.

But this is all very ancient history. Modern Hindu organizations like the Arya Samaj formally convert people and they've been doing so since the beginning of this century, and the RSS re-converts people, particlarly tribals

A perfect example of the protestantization of hinduism. We do need to look at the ancient history if we are interested in learning alternate means of conceptualization.

As for "devas" interpretation, aren't their branches of Saivism that see him as the Supreme and the other devas as his creation and agents?

Both Shaiva and Vaishnava tend to hold their respective deity not so much "higher" but "more applicable," It's a subtle distinction, but a distinction none the less. So for example, Vaishnavas will say, I am a Vaishnava so I worship Vishnu, and see all other deities as manifestations of Vishnu. There are some hardcore Vaishnavas that won't look at a Siva Lingam or Ganapati Statue, (mostly, Tamil Vaishnavas) but, even so, its more of a "This works for me, that could work for you just the same, but not for me" attitude, not a "This is the correct way, and if you don't follow it, you'll be lost"

Of course HK didn't start the narrowminded interpretation, but they definitely are the most visible proponents of it, and from what I've noticed by living a block away from an HK temple, having a die hard HK roommate for one year in college and having a cousin heavily involved in the Brooklyn temple, they tend to have a sense of condescension to the folks who don't adhere to their interpretation.

And I won't mention Mr. Ham anymore, anyone interested in knowing about him can simply do a google search, he's unsavory, I appreciate his excommunication and it's understandable why the current leadership and members would want to distance themselves from him, and not discuss his influences in the past.

Gautham:

Thanks for your honest reply too.

Actually in my response to the question why the Indian clothes, food, etc I think I was being over-analytical. The foremost reason that HK followers wear Indian clothes, wear tilak and tulsi-mala, eat Indian food, etc. is because Prabhupada, their founder guru, asked them to. He said it made them look like they were from Vaikuntha. Of course the reasons I described made it attractive to them as well.

Interestingly, part of the reason Prabhupada liked his disciples to adopt Indian culture was because he thought it was superior to Western culture in many ways. He also wanted to show Indian people, whom he saw as abandoning traditional Indian culture because of over-fascination with the West, that Western boys and girls were doing the opposite, and that maybe seeing that they'd stop and think for a moment.

As for the question of "authenticity", I know that's a problem word all around. I used it just to describe the idea, from the perspective of a Western-born devotee of Krishna, that dressing, eating, following the rituals etc of the traditional Indian-born devotees of Krishna in West Bengal or Braj is more "authentic". Whether that's co-opting or self-defeating I don't know, but there is a conscious effort in the HK community to introduce and uphold "Vedic" culture, for whatever that's worth.

"It's not the white Hare Krishnas and their beliefs that bothered me when younger, it was the idea you espoused that they are as Indian as I am because they know Hindi, Bollywood etc. When in reality, for them it is a choice of beliefs that they can reject and become "regular" in the eyes of American society."

I'm sorry if it read that way, but I don't claim that HK followers or even the second generation born into the movement are as Indian as desis. I know what it's like to grow up in the HK community and therefore to absorb aspects of Indian culture from birth, but I absolutely don't know what it's like to grow up for example within an Indian family, within that whole dynamic, or to be brown in a white world, etc. I've seen it from the outside a bit, perhaps a bit more than someone who has never been exposed to Indian culture, but no, you're absolutely right, I am not as Indian as you are.

Nonetheless there's a strange multiculturalism at work. As you suggest, a convert devotee can walk away from HK, reject the beliefs, and become "regular" in the eyes of American society. However, for the 2nd generation it's a little more complicated than that. For myself, I have conformed to the larger culture in my appearance, and if I don't talk about it no one would know my HK or India-related background, yet I have an affinity for things Indian and some first-hand knowledge about them that's just as much a part of me as my white skin. I think it's deeper than just orientalist fascination with the exotic other, or what have you, because it's something from my childhood upbringing that I didn't really choose. To reject that is to reject my own youth spent living in India, being exposed to Indian languages and Indian music. In fact, I did reject it for awhile in a quest to become more "American", but now I think I'm richer for it.

Anyway, I mentioned it earlier as a cultural phenomenon readers might find interesting, and I wasn't trying to boast or try to out-authenticate anyone. I apologize if it sounded that way.

There are some hardcore Vaishnavas that won't look at a Siva Lingam or Ganapati Statue, (mostly, Tamil Vaishnavas) but, even so, its more of a "This works for me, that could work for you just the same, but not for me" attitude, not a "This is the correct way, and if you don't follow it, you'll be lost"

Thats true of 99% of Hindus, but I know off the top of my head that Madhavacharya envisioned eternal damnation:

From wiki-

Additionally, Madhvacharya differed significantly from traditional Hindu beliefs in his concept of eternal damnation. For example, he divides souls into three classes, one class which qualify for liberation, Mukti-yogyas, another subject to eternal rebirth or eternally transmigrating due to samsara, Nitya-samsarins, and significantly, a class that is eventually condemned to eternal hell or Andhatamas, known as Tamo-yogyas.
Madhva followers cite authorities such as Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 17, verses 2 et seq. "'There are three types of inclination, which are the self-same natures of the souls, these being satvika, rajasa, and tamasa," Chapter 16, verses 19-20, "These cruel haters, worst among men in the world, I hurl these evil-doers into the wombs of demons only. Entering into demoniacal wombs and deluded, birth after birth, not attaining me, they thus fall, Oh Arjuna, into a condition still lower than that," for their concept of eternal damnation. Madhvacharaya was the first in the recent years who revived the timeless Vaishnava tradition. There were 21 different Bashayas (commenteries) before SriMadhvacharaya. He is the first to establish the facts of tri-patriate classification of souls. By contrast, most Hindus believe that souls will eventually obtain moksha, even after millions of rebirths.

I find Madhavacharya's hermeneuics to be a stretch much of the time (as in the way he glosses 'tat tvam asi' in the upanishads) but there it is.

Divya:
A perfect example of the protestantization of hinduism. We do need to look at the ancient history if we are interested in learning alternate means of conceptualization.

Ah, but how many real protestants would there have been in North India if it weren't for the Arya Samaj? What you view as a colonial hangover can also be viewed as a survival strategy, FWIW.

Gaudiya Vaishnavism is named after the area of what is today known as West Bengal and Bangladesh. In former times that area was known as Gauda Desh, hence, Vaishnavas from Gauda Desh were known as "Gaudiya Vaishnavas".

Connecting the name Gaura (Mahaprabhu) to Gauda (Desh), is an esoteric way that devottees of Mahaprabhu may look at the term.

The speciality of this branch of Vaishnavism is it's specific focus on Krishna's intimate relationship with his consort, Radha, and an emphasis on her, over and above Krishna himself.

The exclusivity that many here equate with ISKCON is actually steeped in the medieval literature of the previous saints, writers, poets, and mystics of the Gaudiya tradition. They are one pointedly devoted to Radha and Krishna over and above other avatars of Ishwar. ISKCON by no means introduced that to the world.

Nor did ISKCON introduce missionary style preaching and conversions. That is indeed the very mood and method of Chaitanya (Gauranga) Mahaprabhu's sankirtan. To go out and give Radha Krishna bhakti to everyone you meet through the dissemination of their holy names.

However, harrassing people in airports IS exclusively an ISKCON thing.

I agree with Gautham on the tendency of "westerners" (maybe particularly Americans) to usurp a tradition/culture and commercialize it and in the process water it down.

As a westerner myself who has accepted the universiality of a certain "Indian" path of worship (not vaishnava), I have seen first hand this phenomena. On the one hand westerners feign a type of embarrassement over their own culture (even the good aspects) and over-glorify Indians and Indian culture. On the other hand, they are unable to humbly participate in whatever Indian religion they are a part of as a listener and learner for a very long period of time, without exhibiting tendencies to control the scene. This is a generalization and does not hold for everyone, but it is my personal experience also.

I have a handful of friends and family members who in some form or another are involved in Vaishnavism, more traditional forms, as well as ISKCON. One phenomena that a number of dear friends have expressed to me is that former ISKCON devottees often come into their circles and try to superimpose whatever they learned in ISKCON, as well as their preaching tactics, unto their new Vaishnava affiliation. They have now termed it, "the ISKCONIZATION of ......" (insert any traditional Vaishnava society's name there).

ISKCON members are famous for this in India appearantly.

As far as some ISKCON youths having an affinity for Bollywood,perhaps we can chalk that up to bad taste? Just kidding. It's natural that some western devottees would gain an affinity for some aspects of the larger Indian culture, when exposed to it. Yeah, perhaps they like the soundtrack to Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, but they also like punk rock, reggae or whatever.

And I don't know any ISKCON youth, who would be happy with adopting Indian culture wholesale. Most non-Indian ISKCON youth I know are glad that they did not take birth in India.

ISKCON's emphasis on preaching and converting at the expense of the more meditative aspects of Gaudiya Vaishnavism is something that has caused alot of ISKCON members to leave in order to seek out more internally focused, meditative aspects of Radha-Krishna bhakti such as lila smaranam (a technique for extended meditation on the rupa, form of Krishna and his associates like the cowherd damsels, and their various activities throughout the day and acommpanied by the internal chanting of the maha-mantra, a process to be learned under the guidance of a guru adept in such meditation).

Yet sometimes it is seen that those same former ISKCON members, when faced with the reality that they have not been sufficiently prepared for such sadhana, then try to bring the same missionary zeal into the new Vaishnava group that they join, much to the dismay of serious and deep meditative sadhakas.

By the way, I was banned from SM over a year ago. Now I have returned from India to see I am still banned, and neither I nor Abhi can remember why I was banned in the first place. Is it possible that the ban could be lifted so that I can post here from my home computer?

Thanks.

HMK implied that: firstly (1) the references to “I, My” in the Bhagavadgita out to refer to all gods and principle and the “broad” concepts of Brahman, Paramatma, etc. ; (2) Srila Prabhupada’s use of the term “demigods” is wrong and deogatory and (3) conversion is foreign to Hinduism.

HMK> “The central problem with the ISKCON interpretation of the Gita is its taking the Gita’s usage of words like “aham” (I), “mama” (my), “maam” (me) too literally, as the Krishna with the blue hue, flute, son of Devaki and so forth…So therefore, Brahman, Siva, Ganesha etc. are all demigods and can only get you so far..” … an not a metaphor for a larger concept of Brahman, paramatman, etc. that tends to occupy other interpretatrions.

The words “me,” “my,” and “I” do refer to Krishna and any of His Vishnu forms such as Matsya, Kurma, etc,--all of whom are known as Bhagavan—but not to the devas or gods. He is very emphatic about the distinctions between Him and the gods throughout:

On the distinction between the gods and Krishna or Bhagavan
Bhagavan is the source of all other gods (10.2, 10.12, 11.38); He is the God of gods (10.14); The gods cannot understand His origin. (10.2); The gods are mere agents of the Supreme God who is the ultimate enjoyer. (9.24); The gods are bewildered by the three gunas and they cannot understand Krishna. (7.13)

On the Worship of the gods:
Worship of other gods is ultimately meant for Bhagavan who is the source and sustainer of those gods. (9.23); An ignorant worshipper of the gods who does not recognize the Lord’s supremacy falls to a lower status of life. (9.24); It is generally because of the bewildering influence of the material modes upon the souls that they worship other gods at all (17.4); Even the temporary fruits awarded by the gods are really provided by Krishna alone (7.22); When the intelligence is lost due to lust, their followers worship the gods and neglect the Supreme Lord (7.20)

On the Limitations of the gods:
The demigods cannot award ultimate liberation since attainment of their abodes is temporary. (9.21); This impermanence holds true not only for the planet of Indra (surendra-loka) (9.20) and svarga-loka (9.21) and Brahma-loka (8.16).
Only Bhagavan’s abode (known as Vaikuntha) is eternal upon attaining which there is no rebirth. (15.6, 8.21 8.16)

Results of worship of the gods vs. Bhagavan
Men of small intelligence worship the gods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the gods go to the gods, but My devotees come to Me. 7.23
Those sworn to the gods go to the gods, those sworn to the forefathers go the forefathers; worshippers of ghostly spirits go to such spirits; but those who worship Me go to Me. (9.25)

Addionatlly, the cosmic form of the Lord in chapter 11 contains all the gods like Brahma and Siva (11.15) astonishes and overwhelms the gods. (11.21-22)
Note, all these references are from an article by Howard Resnick in Journal of Vaishnava Studies, “Krishna in the Bhagavad-gita: A Beginning Ontology” back in the 90s.

Regarding the so-called broader concepts of Brahman and Paramatma, it is true that Krishna is Brahman (10.12) and He is Paramatma (15.15-18). This is explicit in the text itself: However, according to Krishna, Brahman and Paramatman are *lesser* expressions of Godhead that are dependent on Himself (Bhagavan):

“I continuously sustain this entire universe with just one small portion (eka-amshena) [of myself].10.42 This “one small portion” is then revealed by Krishna to be the Purusa, Paramatma, or the Vishnu form of the Rg Veda that is revealed later in chapter 11.

“I am the basis of Brahman.” (brahmano pratisthaham, 14.27)

Regarding Srila Prabhupada’s use of the word demigod, it is not strictly according to English usage which indicates the offspring of a human and divine union. Rather, he uses it in the sense of being only partially divine. A god is only partially divine because he is fundamentally a jiva-atman like the rest of us, yet he has been invested with special powers temporarily. Bhagavan is not a temporary position like that to be occupied by a soul. There is no other purpose in referring to them as demigods.

Regarding conversions, all acharyas of Hinduism promoted their doctrine throughout India such as Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva. The concept of preaching is not new to India. Likewise, Prabhupada did envision large centers with massive effort for propaganda. There is nothing wrong with converting as long as one treats all souls with proper dignity and respect, unlike the deceptive approaches of Christian missionaries and Islamic terrorists. Hindus in the subcontinent have declined from 87% in 1800 down to 66% today. Unless Hindus take up proper conversion practices in the spirit of the exemplary Hindu acharyas, their future is very grim.

I am interested in general principles and perhaps that is why you get the sense that I belive all hindus are the same but this is so not how I think.

i have no problems with general principles. but your use of english implies categorical, definitive and absolute facts. e.g., "hindus are X," not "hinduism tends toward X." your dialogue with others reflects, you will often assert, "this is not hindu, this is a western import, hinduism is X." if there is variation within the generality you couldn't operate in this litmus test manner.

but culture is something you are born into

no. this is true in many cases, but clearly gays are not born into the gay culture, even if they are born gay. many evangelical christians are not born into the evangelical christian subculture. there is an element of malleability and choice in the modern world which many traditionalists treat as deviations from the norm, but in the united states this is the norm. as for the idea that minority identity is enforced by the outside, there is some truth in this but i think it is overreach to speak as if a visible minority is helpless in how they are perceived by the outside world.

Crap, I screwed up the tags. Mods you can delete the last post. Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GS, thank you for telling me the ISKCON interpretation. It's clear you haven't a single clue what I've been saying. But I will take one of your citations and deconstruct it:

The gods are bewildered by the three gunas and they cannot understand Krishna. (7.13)

BG 7.13

tribhir gunya-mayair bhavair
ebhih sarvam idam jagat
mohitam nabhijnati
maam ebhyah? param avyayam

"Deluded by the three modes [goodness, passion and ignorance], the whole world does not know Me, who am above the modes and inexhaustible."

"idam jagat" hardly means "the gods" - but means "the whole world"

But you've effectively proved my point and your dogmatic nature in one fell swoop. Every instance of mama, maam, and aham you've taken far too literally. Yes Bhagavan is the source of all other gods, but Bhagavan does not necessarily have a flute, play with gopis, and tend cows. THAT indeed is one of the forms of Bhagavan. (at least, this is how a non-ISKCONian would see it)

"Likewise, Prabhupada did envision large centers with massive effort for propaganda. There is nothing wrong with converting as long as one treats all souls with proper dignity and respect,"

Really. tell that to my Iskcon roommate who said "I am pure because I chant Hare Krishna mantra, here, do you wish to be pure?" It's a far cry from dignity and respect, it's downright insulting. And if Prabhupad had large centers in mind, how come New Vrindavan was finished far earlier than the ISKCON temple in Bangalore, Prabhupad's own country?

HMF, maybe you should do some more reading on the life and teachings of Swami Prabhupada. There is a biography out and alot of his conversations and letters with his disciples have been published and sold for years. He was totally INTO building temples and proseltyzing. He sent his disciples all over the world for such. All the details are available in the literature mentioned above.

And there are alot of ISKCON mandirs and smaller "preaching centers" all over India.

I am wondering if the feelings expressed here by brown and non-brown HK devotees are similar to those expressed by brown and white (turbaned) American Sikhs? They too have adopted a religion and many other "cultural" aspects of the religion. Also, like some of the HK's they are pretty visible due to their head coverings. Just curious if any one has any information. Thanks.

I'm well aware of the ISKCON literature surrounding Prabhupad, (it's very similar to the Nation of Islam's literature surrounding Elijah Muhammed) my source was a book by James J Boyle, called Killer Cults, and has a chapter dedicated specifically to the Palace of Gold. This one alludes that Prabhupad wasn't really supportive of building a large center, in particular the POG, away from an urban mass at that. But, maybe this guy just has a grudge to pick.

Whatever its provenance, the West Virginia center is beautifully bucolic and serene. Unfortunately, I was treated to a vitriolic discourse against the "mayavadins," which is what followers of Advaita Vedanta are called by the ISKCON folks. Generally, they are kind to all Vaishnava Bhakti Vedantins, whether the Ramanuja, Nimbarka or Vallabha sampradeyas, but the advaitins are anathema, praccana baudh (crypto-Buddhist) outcastes. Sri Bhagavan is a person, they kept telling me. Its funny watching a white Vaishnavite rage at Sankara.

HMK> "idam jagat" hardly means "the gods" - but means "the whole world" ...But you've effectively proved my point and your dogmatic nature in one fell swoop.

Oh really!? "idam jagat" means the residents of the jagat or universe and this verse is elaborated upon in later verses: BG 14.3-5 states that all the living beings (sarva-bhutanam) in the loka (world, universe=jagat) are bound by the modes to their bodies. And who are the bhutas or embodied entities referred to? Does this include the gods or exclude them? In 16.6, the two types of bhutas are (1) daiva and (2) asura. Daiva is understood to refer to the devas according to such diverse commentators as Shankara, Madhusudana Sarasvati, Baladeva Vidyabhusana, Radhakrishnan and Prabhupada by reference to the Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 1.3.1. (Are they also dogmatic like me?) Therefore, the BG characterizes the devas (gods) (but not Bhagavan) as conditioned by the gunas--the modes.

HMK> but Bhagavan does not necessarily have a flute, play with gopis, and tend cows.

Well, He does have those as well as an infinity of other Vishnu forms--all of which are distinct from the devas.

HMK> It's a far cry from dignity and respect, it's downright insulting.

Yes it is. Maybe you can tell him that tactfully.

HMK> And if Prabhupad had large centers in mind, how come New Vrindavan was finished far earlier than the ISKCON temple in Bangalore, Prabhupad's own country?

His personal large center projects were Mayapur and Vrndavan plus Bombay. The two you mentioned are the efforts of other individuals with his inspiration.

GS

Thank you Former Krishna Kid and Videsi Gori. You guys have made this one of the more informative and interesting threads here on SM in a while. I really enjoyed learning of your perspectives. And as browniefromtx alluded to, there is also a sizable 2nd generation of 'White' Sikhs, many of whom also spent significant portions of their childhoods in northern India, and who undoubtedly have their own take on these issues (the website sikhnet.com is actually the creation of several such people).

HMF and GS -- Its obvious that you both are intelligent, philosophically-minded individuals who are enjoying going head to head on varying interpretations of the Gita. Might I humbly suggest, however, that we are getting far from the original topic? If that is what you want to do, cool, but I'm not sure if this is the appropriate thread or forum to do it on. Not sure what other Mutineers think about it, but that's my sense.

HMF, one of your original points (following Abhi's posting of the WP story) seemed to indicate that 1)ISKCON was unique in taking a literal approach to Krishna -- flute, cows, colored like a raincloud -- being the one and only svayam-Bhagavan (Supreme Personality of Godhead, as Prabhupada and his predecessors often phrased it); and 2) that such an approach was narrow-minded and smacked of influence by (or co-opting of) a fanatical evangelical Christian understanding of God. I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting you -- thats how I read it. To these two points, I would say the following:

1) The Hare Krishna movement's reading of Krishna's "aham" and "mama" to refer to Himself as the individual Supreme Lord have strong historic roots that pre-date ISKCON or Prabhupada. As a start, check out the commentaries of Baladeva, Visvanath Chakravarti, Madhva, and Ramanuja on verse such as 2.12 (Krishna as being eternally distinct from the individual jivatma), 7.13-14 (Krishna being transcendent to the gunas and all living beings), 9.23-25 (Krishna's position vis a vis the devatas), 12.5-8 (Krishna and Brahman), 9.343/18.65 (Krishna's repeated instruction to offer all worship to Him), and of course 18.66 (the famous "sarva dharma parityajya" conclusion of the Gita). While you will find subtle differences, what all of these acaryas agree on is their conviction that Krishna/Vishnu is speaking as a distinct transcendant individual, not a metaphor or human stand-in for Brahman or Paramatma, and that He is the Supreme Lord. In fact, history has it that Ramanuja was such an outspoken advocate of this view that he clashed with his own teacher, the leading Advaitin of his day Yadava Prakash, ultimately leading to Yadava's trying to kill Ramanuja (scandal!) and finally banishing him from the institution (excommunication?). Interesting sidenote: later Ramanuja would defeat and convert (convert!) Yadava into a Vaishnava. Anyway, my point is not to convince you that this reading of Krishna's words is "the" right answer. My point is simply to say that in holding such a reading ISKCON is not doing something suspect, it is just remaining faithful to a long-standing tradition of fiercly outspoken Vaishnavas. You don't have to agree with them or even particularly like their view. Personally, as someone who chooses to be a Gauidya Vaishnava, ISKCON member, and admitted fan of Ramanuja, I do agree with this view. But if you want to disagree, thats absolutely fine. I just ask you to do so in a way that is more informed of the tradition and history behind what you choose to disagree with.

2) There may be parts of Hindu or Vaishnava (or any) traditions which we haven't come across before, don't understand, don't agree with, or simply piss us off. That's to be expected to an extent. But to write them off as being proof that ISKCON is some co-opted Christian boogeyman seems to do a disservice to the complexity of theolgical, sociological, and cultural factors at play. Not to mention, it tends to breed narrow-mindedness, paranoia, defensiveness, scapegoating, and good-old fashioned rudeness... things that cut against the dignity and respect that you obviously value highly.

The fact is ISKCON has all sorts of members and former-members with all sorts of baggage, issues, personalities, and interpretations. So does every organization, institution, matha, mandir, church, mosque, whatever. You will come across fanatics and self-righteous people in every tradition and house of worship. You will also come across some beautiful people who really inspire you by the way that they live the essence of their faith. Sweeping generalizations and categorical judgments can sadly blind one to the latter, though.

Bottom line: it sounds like your ISKCON-devotee roomate was kind of a jerk. Or at least not very emotionally or spiritually mature in his ability to understand his own faith and respect others (like you) who may not agree with him. I'm sorry that you had such a negative experience, and can only hope and pray that its not the only kind you had or will have.

I hope that you will not take offense to what I've written or see it as an attack. I just wanted to share my view and express the understanding of the Vaishnava traditions -- at least in as much as they've spoken to me.

By the way, feel free to interpret all of the "I" "my" and "me" references in the last paragraph however you'd like, although -- at the risk of revealing my narrow-minded stance -- I assure you that I am not merely a metaphor. ;-) Come on, HMF... if we can't laugh a little, we're all doomed.

All the best,
DesiDasa

there is also a sizable 2nd generation of 'White' Sikhs, many of whom also spent significant portions of their childhoods in northern India, and who undoubtedly have their own take on these issues (the website sikhnet.com is actually the creation of several such people).

I was thinking of Sikhnet too. Based on my own interaction with so-called 'White' Sikhs with regards to the people running that website and some of the past-and-present regular commenters on their discussion forum, I would say that to some extent many of the people concerned actually have a better grasp of the religion's tenets (with the consequent impact on their personalities) than many 'hereditary' Sikhs, because they don't have the usual Indian cultural baggage affecting their behaviour, perceptions, and interpretation of the religion.

I recall quite a few Indian Sikhs commenting favourably on the above too.

Amitabh, did you notice this as well ?

some of the past-and-present regular commenters on their discussion forum

Clarification: This includes Sikhs of Caucasian background too. A much smaller number of (female) African-American Sikhs have also occasionally participated there.

HMF, one of your original points (following Abhi's posting of the WP story) seemed to indicate that 1)ISKCON was unique in taking a literal approach to Krishna -- flute, cows, colored like a raincloud -- being the one and only svayam-Bhagavan (Supreme Personality of Godhead, as Prabhupada and his predecessors often phrased it); and 2) that such an approach was narrow-minded and smacked of influence by (or co-opting of) a fanatical evangelical Christian understanding of God. I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting you -- thats how I read it.

That's pretty much my contention, although, I did acknowledge that ISKCON didn't necessarily start this line of thinking (narrowmindedness has existed as long as humanity has), but because of a dissemination strategy and lots of western financial banking (earned in various, hmm, ways), they are the largest and most visible proponents of it, within the larger "Hindu" framework.

As for Christian influence,I wasn't completely clear, but I believe in addition to the dualistic understanding of God (ie I can never merge with Bhagavan, I can only become a servant of Krishna) , more so it's the methodology adopted that's uniquely ISKCON. By that I mean the high public visibility, airport recruitment, condescending attitudes held towards non "believers" etc.. Perhaps I'm biased because the sample points I've always heard from say things like "It would be great if you could practice Krishna consciousness" in a very patronizing tone...

While you will find subtle differences, what all of these acaryas agree on is their conviction that Krishna/Vishnu is speaking as a distinct transcendant individual, not a metaphor or human stand-in for Brahman or Paramatma, and that He is the Supreme Lord.

I don't think the scholars from Vishishtadvaita traditions for example equate Krishna/Vishnu as you've implicitly done with the slash. Most interpretations have Krishna as the 8th avatar of Vishnu, a clear subordination. But to your point about different interpretations, I personally believe the entire BG is one big metaphor. Think about it from a practical sense - Two large armies about to fight, and these two guys come out and have a talk right before? Dharmakshetra (the field of dharma) I believe are our very bodies and minds, not a grassy field in Northern India.

But I do believe worshipping Krishna personally can work for those who choose that path, as are those who choose to worship

Incidentally I actually looked up Ramanuja's Gitabhashya regarding 2.12, it seems to me a counter against the Advaitin (bimba-pratibimba) that jiva is a mere reflection of the supreme, and any perceived distinction is out of ignorance. - But I didn't see any commentary stating those who do not follow Krishna, as in, blue hue, flute, cows, butter are ignorant, deluded, spiritually defunct, etc.... which as I said, is the interpretation some ISKCONians seem to take.

Anyhow, I've already earned a reputation as an ISCKON hater - but I will say I do appreciate certain things about them.
1. The food and "feasts" they have weekly, Govindas in LA is fantastic
2. The information and literaature they provide on vegetarianism
3. The artwork - some of the best I've seen
4. A few of the posterboards provide good, concise little 'nuggets' of info.

Jai:

I agree with you. I remember on Sikhnet there used to be a regular poster called Prabhu Khalsa, a young caucasian guy living in New Mexico who was born and raised as a Sikh, and really exemplified many Sikh qualities (at least in his posts but I have no reason to suspect his conduct in real life was any different). He had very strong love for Sikhi, and as per his anecdotes, suffered tremendously for his Sikh roop as a little kid growing up in a predominantly hispanic locale. He stopped posting on Sikhnet a long time ago though.

Amitabh,

Hey, I remember Prabhu Khalsa ;) He was very enthusiastic about the whole Khalsa thing, wasn't he. Kudos to him.

Do you remember Ek Ong Kaar Kaur Khalsa from a few years ago (during the time of the legendary Dr Yuktanand Singh) ? She was wonderful -- even if you go through Sikhnet's archives and read some of the discussions from those times (often involving Yuktanand ji), it's amazing how inspiring and, indeed, broadminded they are. And, of course, totally in line with the fundamentals of Sikhi, at least in my view.

Carol Kaur was also great. I thought she was such a positive influence on that discussion forum.

I really thought these people had a real grasp of the "reality" of Sikhism, compared to some of the more conservative patriarchal types who didn't seem to know where Sikhism ended and Indian/Punjabi culture began.

compared to some of the more conservative patriarchal types

Amongst the 'hereditary' Sikhs, I mean. It was much more of an issue amongst some (not all) of the older generation gentlemen though (Harprit Singh Sandhu being a notable, and very positive, exception), along with some of the guys who still live in India or who had relatively recently emigrated to the West.

Just out of interest, I was living in the Hare Krishna chateau in France in 1985. One day we went to "preach" to the Yogi Bhajan people who had another chateau a couple of hours drive in our bus throught the countryside. They were all caucasian and wore all white and white turbans. We wore saris or dhotis. We looked down on them because they had supposedly had free sex. We did a kirtan and they loved it, and we all danced in long snakes through the trees on their property for what seemd like hours. Then we dished out plates of prasad. That's all I can remember really. It's said that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Guru Nanak met and danced in ecstacy together. Could this be likely? They lived at the same time, right?

I tend to avoid ISKCON now. So exhausting - all that cult business! There are other branches of Gaudiya Vaisnavism where the flow of bhakti is strong. ISKCON isn't the only way. Of course there's a such a sweet nostalgia ... the Beatles, the sixties. The problem is, ISKCON sees mature, non-Indian, born Vaisnava, often elderly Gaudiya Vaisnava gurus as a threat, and have been known to commit the most terrible insults. It's not the way to go.

This is something I was thinking about actually, if Chaitanya predated Prabhupad by a significant amount of time, about the behavior of other Gaudiya Mathas in India (in terms of conversion, aggressive recruiting etc..), obviously all Gaudiya's believe in Krishna's unique form being superior to all others. In fact, I think they even believe Chaitanya is an incarnation of Krishna.

test

The above was a test obviously,to see if my post would work, sorry about that...

HMF -

The difference between ISKCON'S version of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the more traditional and older forms found in India (and now around the world too), is the difference between a more internally focused contemplative one and a more externally focused one.

Other Gaudiya Vaishnava schools, along with preaching and "out-reach" programs, also lay alot of emphasis on internal development and meditation. ISKCON does not. Hence, as you have noted, they appear more vocal and aggressively proselytizing. Even if one is a "preacher", if they are sufficiently grounded in quiet stillness within, due to the influence of intensive meditation, their preaching will take on a more refined and peaceful aura, as opposed to that person who is 99% of the time engaged in external activities and only does some semblance of meditation for a very short period of time.

ISKCON functions as a sort of bridge between the West and more contemplative schools of Gaudiya Vaishnavism in India. It's a good introduction to the basic tenents of the Vaishnava faith. To go deeper one would have to connect with other more meditative schools which systematically study authentic Vaishnava scriptures under the guidance of gurus who are adept in meditation as well as the original languages of Gaudiya Vaisnava texts - Bengla and Sanskrit.

Amitabh and Jai -

That people born outside of the "cultural trappings" of certain religions, can sometimes be seen practicing a more "pure and authentic" version of the religion, is a commonly found phenomena. Often times non-Arab Muslims can be found to be practicing the core tenants of Islam quite proficiently, minus all the Arabian cultural baggage - good or bad. Same goes with Sikhi and other religions out of India, like Vaishnavism, or whatever. On the other hand sometimes non-Indian sikhs or Hindus tend to take up some aspects of Indian cultural baggage that have nothing to do with their religions, mistakenly thinking that it might be connected.

Then you get Indians who may criticize non-Indian adherents of their religions for NOT taking up external aspects of Indian culture (that have nothing to do with the religion per se) such as dress, food, modes of behaviour (particularly between the sexes) etc.

I know in India I've experienced quite some disdain for not acting like an "Indian girl" - and I'm NOT an Indian girl!

It's like some people could not reconcile the fact that a "religious woman" could act so free, vocal, open and opinionated on a wide variety of (often taboo subjects)in public.

You find this attitude especially amongst the older generation. Younger Indians seem to welcome these things as a sign that they also can be "religious" and "progressive" at the same time. (Both those terms being open to interpretation).

I was formulating a post for the "Are We American" thread but the comments have since been closed.

My comments are anyway more suitable and "on topic" here, since much of what I have to say reflects a commonly held belief between my religion and the "Hare Krishnas" or ISKCON. And like ISKCON, my religion has it's roots and origins in India itself.

As I was going to address over on the other thread;

Gautham and Metric -

Collective karma is not my theory and I don't neccessarily agree with it. That's why I don't feel the slightest personal guilt regarding America's ugly past history with slavery.
However, there are some people (my boyfriend included), who try to pass off that guilt on to me. How am I guilty? I was born only a few decades ago (being generous to myself here, hee hee hee)! Moreover, as I am a believer in purva-janma-vada (past life theory), I understand that in a previous life I may very well have been a slave, and my black American boyfriend may have been a slave master. So someone's gonna hold me accountable for oppression I never committed? Uh-huh. Not gonna happen.

On the other hand, America as a country does have an evil history in this regard so I can see why how COLLECTIVELY Americans have to deal with that. Americans include all colors here.

On a personal note however, whatever we experience in this life is a reaction to something said or done previously, so I acknowledge karma-phal at work in my life too. Example; maybe I never owned a slave in any previous life and maybe I never oppressed anyone in this one, but the fact that hurtful words are finding their way to my ears, proves that at some point somewhere I similarly accused someone else and hence, am now getting my karmic due. This theory and belief has helped me deal pyschologically with alot of personal suffering in life. And I applied it to my experiences in India too, accepting that yeah, on some level what I faced was simply reactions to previous actions. I believe this applies to everyone everywhere at all times. However, that does not negate the need to stand up against injustice, because in standing up against injustice (while acknowledging that they are reactions to previous actions, even if in previous lives), we can break the cycle. But acknowledgement of the cycle is a pre-requisite for breaking it.

OK I don't want to push my beliefs or "religion" onto anyone. I'm not a "preacher". And no, I cannot prove in a lab that I existed in any previous life. Just trying to give a more philosophical viewpoint as to why humans suffer.

Gautham -

Regarding, "If you feel the need to justify prejudice against Indian people, it would be preferable if you stopped using Hindu and Indian cultural insignia to do so. The two are not distinct; the very Indian people and society you are railing against is the same culture that produced the Gita, the Vedas and the rest of it. It's a package deal; you can't live in India and pretend to be living an Indian or Hindu lifestyle while simultaneously decrying and denigrating the people that created it."

Hold on. Does this hold across the board? Does this mean that an immigrant to America cannot criticize American people, culture or policies here just because they are living here and utilizing what people before them built up? Are they also pretending to live an American lifestyle while simultaneously decrying and denigrating the people that created it?

I don't agree. First of all, the people I'm living amongst in India did not create the Gita or the Vedas. Many of them don't even have an interest in either. Secondly, the Gita contains universal truths applicable across the board, meaning it contains principles that cross national, cultural and racial boundaries, and speaks of the nature of oneness in all living beings. As far as the Vedas, I cannot say I accept them at all since I have never read them. But I do accept the Gita, specifically the shlokas that have universal application. I also read other Indians shastras and no, I do not blanketly accept everything in them. Should I? Why? What applies to me and all other living beings at all times is applicable. Things that point to specific cultural traditions of specific time periods, no, I don't need to accept those. Neither do Indians. Cultures change with time but there are some things that do not change - ever. Those would be the spiritual concepts, that are universally applicable.

And just because I read the Gita and just because the Gita sprang forth from an area of our planet known presently as "India", does not mean I have to drip honey over everything and everyone coming from India. That would be patronizing.

MD in her post # 228 on the other thread -

http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003731.html#comment83024

siddhartha - I think some of your comments against Pardesi Gori sum up how I feel about super-educated upper middle class Indians in the US from privileged, well-to-do families, claiming a mantle of oppression......like, say, professors who write articles for the Washington Post in which they state they can never really be Americans :)

Again something that relates to both your above comment as well as this thread on the "new hare krishnas".... Years ago when we first accompanied our Indian Guruji to North American shores we all witnessed a sort of "clash of the classes" phenomena. Many of the white and black American members of our spiritual group are not at all what you would call "wealtlhy", nor are they poverty stricken, but financially they would be considered in the lower-middle class to middle-middle class range, and the neighborhoods in which they reside reflect that. Hence when they hosted Guruji in their homes, a curious reaction was found in Guruji's assitant, whom I will refer to as "Assistantji". Although born and bred in a simple Indian village, he was dismayed at the living conditions of some of his American sisters and brothers in the faith. They were living cleanly and very civil, but not what he EXPECTED for "paisa walla firangis". Although Guruji was quite content in such atmospheres, Assistantji was not, and henceforward he arranged for Guruji to stay with only very wealthy Indian American congregation members. When us "commonfolk" attended the classes in their homes, or were graciously hosted by them, we are amazed at the size of the homes as well as the display of wealth. I'd never seen anything like in the neighborhood where I grew up. I'm talking very very very wealthy people.

That's all fine and good, I don't begrudge anyone their wealth, especially when they work hard for it, which, as professionals, I'm sure they all did, but I'm just making a point here regarding Taz's assumptions about my supposed "priveleged" position. I'd like to know exactly what she means by "privelege". I come from a working class family. No doctors, engineers, professors, lawyers or even computer programmers amongst my lot. I am not financially priveleged at all in America, although I've never been poverty stricken here, my grandparents were poor. In India also I have lived on a very tight budget in conditions that many of my Indian friends from cities like Mumbai and New Delhi say they could not tolerate for even one day. Somehow I adjusted.

I have faced a phenomena in India whereby most people I meet assume I am wealthy because of the part of the world I am from (that goes hand in hand with what I will be asked to pay for certain items which I know the locals cannot possibly be paying). When I explain to them the financial realities of many working class Americans, they seem dismayed and some refuse to believe it. It's almost as if a deeply held belief is being deconstructed right before their eyes.

I know an American guy in India who is trained in Indian Classical Music. He is friends with many other musical enthusiasts in the town, mostly of the brahmin caste. He lives in India most of the time to pursue his love for Indian Classical Music, playing before large crowds and learning from masters of the art. He finances this by returning to USA once a year and working as a JANITOR (cleaning toilets) for 4 - 6 months, and then flies back to India to get his Lucknowi Gharwana on. Now, where he lives the brahmins do not clean their own toilets but rather hire "bhangis", the toilet cleaning caste people, to do the job for them. The do not mix socially with people from this caste but rather simply pay them for their job, however I don't know if "untouchability" still applies in this case. Anyway, whenever the American musician is asked by his brahmin friends what he does to maintain himself, he replies simply, "management". Both of us wonder what reaction he would get if he told his brahmin friends that he is a toilet cleaner.

I always notice a different reaction when I tell people the profession of my father in India as compared to when my friend's who are the sons and daughters of doctors or professors tell theirs.

Even here in America, my Indian-American friends tend to be the Donut Shop wallas, 7-11 wallas, and Faiz's Indo-Pak store wallas more so than Indian-American engineers, lawyers, etc.

There's alot of assumptions and presumptions about "firangis", "videsis", "angrez" and "pardesis" in India.

Anyway, here you can see http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/003731.html#comment83042 that I have made a sincere apology for any possibly biting or stinging words that may have hurt anyone here personally. Again I make the same apology and have hence, on the good advice of Jai and others, tried to tone down my tone and weigh my choice of words before typing them. I hope that my attempt proves fruitful but just in case not, I will give posting a rest for some days.

Thankyou for allowing me to say my peace.

I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My eternal creative potency [yoga-maya]; and so the deluded world knows Me not, who am unborn and infallible.

http://asitis.com/7/25.html

Hi,

IAM AN INDIAN 38YRS LIVING IN BHILAI( CHATTISGARH).I WANT TO JOIN YOUR ORGANISATION AND DEVOTE 24 HRS,PLEASE GUIDE ME FOR JOINING THE ORGANISATION