Lately I’ve witnessed what I can only consider to be philosophical deviations being preaching by ISKCON devotees on the internet. This is, obviously, not the first or the last time that has been seen. But it disturbs me. Some might say that it’s not proper etiquette to mention names, but I think it’s more fair for all parts if readers of this blog can get access the texts written by these devotees in order to evaluate the situation themselves. If these authors really think they are correct they’ll be likely to want people read their texts rather than to just hear my opinions on them. Therefore I will provide links and names in the following.
On dandavats.com Rasasthali Devi Dasi is claiming, contrary to Prabhupada’s words, that Darwinism has not to a large extent caused the moral decline of our world. On his blog Janakirama Prabhu (who is the husband of Rasasthali Devi Dasi) argues that you can create an argument for vegetarianism based on Darwinism. On atmayogi.com Sitapati Prabhu argues that Krishna Consciousness and Bhagavatam is not a science and that we as devotees shouldn’t present them as such. He also seems to be a gay rights activist in a way that runs contrary to Prabhupada views on the matter and he accept quite a lot of the evolution theory as being true – even though it contradicts sastra and Prabhupada. He has written a lot about these thing, so you have to investigate his blog for yourself. On news.iskcon.com Janakirama Prabhu and someone who calls himself Kapil (I don’t know if he’s a devotee) argues that Intelligent Design is not science and criticises Expelled the Movie.
The above mentioned philosophical deviations are only a few among many being preached on the internet and other places by ISKCON devotees. It is our duty to ask ourselves where such misunderstandings and philosophical deviations – smaller or greater as they might be – comes from?
One answer would be that people in Kali-Yuga are very prone to accept the atheistic conclusions they’ve heard for their whole lives in our soul killing educational institutions. A philosophically weak kanistha-adhikari is by definition easily confused when confronted with opposing arguments and has a tendency to compromise or even be converted. When such a kanistha-adhikari feels social pressure he or she might want to find some sort of compromise to remove that pressure. Thus it’s tempting to create a fantasy that mixes devotional and atheistic arguments.
I think ISKCON has a lot of work to do in order to make sure that new devotees are properly educated in Krishna Consciousness.
Another answer would be that there’s a lot of bad, but well-meaning, preaching going on in ISKCON (among all the good preaching). Often we are so eager to get new devotees that we use all sorts of speculative preaching styles which gives people the impression that ISKCON is a much more compromising religion than it actually is. In this way we attract a lot of dangerous pseudo-spiritualists who sooner or later hampers our preaching due to their non-devotional attitudes. I think ISKCON devotees should be less speculative in their preaching efforts and that we should focus on “boiling down the milk”.
“Now I want that we shall concentrate on making our devotees Krishna conscious and ourselves becoming Krishna conscious, and not be so much concerned with expanding ourselves widely but without any spiritual content. Just like boiling the milk, it becomes thicker and sweeter. Now do like that, boil the milk.” [Letter to Rupanuga, 72-05-09]
Can ISKCON afford to not address the views of devotees who are preaching philosophical deviations? I think ISKCON needs to be better at protecting itself from such deviations. After all Prabhupada said that ISKCON can only be destroyed from within. If we keep our doors too open bad elements will creep in. Unfortunately it has now become increasingly difficult to check the spreading of deviating views since every new bhakta and bhaktin can now voice his or her opinion on his own blog and on internet forums.
What to do? Let’s work together in a true spirit of wanting to protect ISKCON and helping devotees get back to Prabhupada. I’ll address the texts of the devotees in forthcoming posts.
6 responses so far ↓
rasasthali // 28/02/2009 at 12:18 |
With due respect, I think that you are the one who is philosophically deviated. Your arguments for the moral decline caused by Darwin’s theory are solely based on Srila Prabhupada’s words, even though Srila Prabhupada never encouraged us to repeat things of which we have no realization of. I would like to hear a historical evidence of that, based on multiple books writen by dosens of scholars studying Darwin. Could you provide that, please?
How is a criticism of Intelligent Design and the movie Expelled a philosophical deviation? Do you know anything about the ID theorists?
sincerely,
Rasasthali Dasi
Sita-pati das // 02/03/2009 at 10:19 |
This comment is for your Darwin and Hitler post:
Science Daily.com has an interesting article entitled: “How to spot a hidden religious agenda“, which contains the following:
That’s correct.
Sita-pati das // 02/03/2009 at 10:26 |
One thing that I notice here, and in many devotee exchanges elsewhere, is that you don’t accurately represent the positions you argue against – either mine, or those of evolutionists.
My understanding of Vedic debate, based on the examples of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura’s “Brahmana and Vaisnava”, and Baladeva Vidyabhusana’s “Govinda Bhasya”, is that you cannot refute a position until you can present it to the satisfaction of its proponents.
My understanding is that this is the reason why the book “Spiritual Dialectism” is no longer in print. Srila Prabhupda’s disciple did not accurately represent the philosophical position he was supposed to be advocating, and as a result Srila Prabhupada ended up arguing against a strawman. As a consequence of this the book was deemed to lack sufficient rigour to be published.
Have you heard anything like that?
Ajit // 04/03/2009 at 05:18 |
My answer:
http://vaisnavaapologetics.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/126/
Ajit // 04/03/2009 at 15:51 |
I think I represent opposing views quite fairly. Your welcome to argue the opposite if you like.
I haven’t heard about Spiritual Dialectics. I think it would be ok to publish anyhow, if it is written that the opposing views might not be represented good enough, but that we are only interested in Prabhupada’s answers to the points raised. It would still be interesting.
Ajit // 04/03/2009 at 16:12 |
Dear Rasasthali,
I have addressed the many of your points in this post:
http://vaisnavaapologetics.wordpress.com/2009/03/02/reading-prabhupada-as-the-devil-reads-the-bible/
I will gradually provide more evidence in support of my points. But honestly, I think you should know that there are hundreds of books on the subject.
“How is a criticism of Intelligent Design and the movie Expelled a philosophical deviation? Do you know anything about the ID theorists?”
I have been studying ID for 7-8 years as a part of my interest in apologetics. I’m helping out at our Danish http://www.intelligentdesign.dk website which is run by Lalitanath Prabhu, who is probably the best ID proponent in Denmark. Prabhupada used the Design Argument hundreds of times and he wanted his scientifically minded disciples to provide scientific evidence in support of the Design Arguments premises. So I would call it a philosophical deviation to now reject the argument as invalid, and I would also argue that ID as a scientific theory is clearly valid. The debate about ID is a debate that I think should go on in ISKCON on a sober and intellectual level, because right now many devotees are very misinformed about ID which they, like many atheists, think to be Creationism. It seems to me that many devotees read and accept the atheistic views instead of going to the source; the ID theorists themselves.