WHAT IS BEST – SITTING, STANDING UP OR WALKING WHILE CHANTING?

Dear readers,

Recently I read this on the internet:

Mahadyuti Dasa : Appears to be a myth going around ISKCON that we MUST sit down when chanting our rounds. The following anecdote from Srutakirti Das (“Srila Prabhupada Uvaca”, 62) debunks that myth:

—————————————————————

It was easy to understand that Srila Prabhupada enjoyed chanting japa. He always stressed the importance of chanting our 16 rounds. He once told me that as a householder, he used a simple process for completing 16 rounds that we could apply. “When I was a householder,” he said, “I would chant four rounds before each meal and four rounds before retiring in the evening. In this way 16 rounds could be chanted without difficulty.” He laughed and said, “If you don’t take prasadam before chanting your four rounds then you will be sure to get them chanted.” In New Dwaraka he told me, “In the evening, if I get tired, I walk and chant. If you are tired, then walk and chant like I do. Sometimes, if I am tired, I pace back and forth in the room. Simply, in one room you can do everything. If you are tired, you can stand up and chant, like I do.”

I seems to me that quite a few devotees would like to use this as an excuse for walking while chanting. We often see devotees almost running around the temples rooms or outside while chanting. Walking has for many become the norm instead of something we only allow ourselves to do if we are too tired or passionate to sit down.

To get a clearer understanding of this issue, let us analyze what Prabhupada is ACTUALLY SAYING in the above quote:

(All emphasis added to improve your understanding)

“In the evening, IF I get TIRED, I walk and chant. IF you are TIRED, THEN walk and chant like I do. Sometimes, IF I am TIRED, I pace back and forth in the room. Simply, in one room you can do everything. IF you are TIRED, you can stand up and chant, like I do.”

What are we allowed to conclude from this quote? Logic only allows us to conclude that IF we are TIRED, THEN we can stand up or walk (Prabhupada repeats this “IF” four times) Contrary to what some devotees seem to think (or like) this particular quote is not evidence that we can just walk whenever we like and as we like. In and of itself this quote only allows us to conclude that IF we are tired, then we can stand up or walk.

What about the following quote?

Devotee: Prabhupada? We know that His divine Grace Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati always sat very erect and it is stated here in the Bhagavad-gita that one should sit erect. Will this aid us in our concentrating on chanting our japa, if we try to concentrate, if we sit erect while chanting?

Prabhupada: No, no, it doesn’t require any sitting posture. But IF you can sit, IT HELPS YOU. IT HELPS YOU. IF YOU CAN SIT STRAIGHT LIKE THIS, IT WILL BE VERY NICE, IT CAN HELP, YES, YOU CAN CONCENTRATE IN CHANTING AND HEARING. Therefore these things ARE REQUIRED. But we are not very much particular about this. But he was brahmacari, he could sit like that. That is the sign of brahmacari. He was not a false brahmacari, but he was real brahmacari. (end) (Bhagavad-gita 6.47, Ahmedabad, December 12, 1972)

What can we infer from this quote? First of all we can conclude that…

1. IF you can sit IT HELPS YOU (Prabhupada repeats this three times)

2. IF you can sit it will be VERY NICE.

3. Sitting can help you concentrate in hearing and chanting.

Prabhupada goes on to say that these things are required, but then he immediately says that we are not very particular about it. Why not? Because we are not real brahmacaris like Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. This indicates that what Prabhupada is saying is that since we are false, low class devotees we can not be expected to follow this instruction even though it is the best and will help us in our hearing and chanting.

So standing up or walking while chanting is a lowering of the standard. It is a concession for people who are too restless and disturbed to sit down while chanting. They have to be instructed in a lower standard. We have to see things as they are, not as we would like them to be. Prabhupada does NOT say that walking while chanting is as good as sitting. On the contrary he says sitting is best, it helps in hearing and chanting. If you can’t sit – like if you are too tired or restless – then you can stand up or walk.

Some devotees might claim that is it easy to concentrate while walking. But that is false. Yogic postures for meditation are designed to aid concentration and boost our energy, so we will not feel tired. Walking forces us to focus on navigating in the external environment and therefore forces your attention outside instead of inside and thus hinders the pratyahara and dharana stages of yoga – what to speak of dhyana and samadhi. Only a devotee far beyond the stage of anartha-nivrtti can see Krishna in everything and thus chant in all circumstances without loosing his Krishna consciousness. Before we reach such an advanced stage we will unavoidably be more or less inattentive to the holy names (the 11th offense which is the root cause of all other offenses) while we are on our “japa walk”.

Prabhupada said that if you go for first class you will get second class. But if you go for second class you will get fifth class. So why not aim for first class – in this case sitting while chanting? Why not try to make that the first priority? Why twist Prabhupadas words to make excuses and justifying, preaching and practicing a lower standard?

As devotees we need to carefully consider the quality of our devotional service. Do we want to keep a lower standard all our lives risking not to go back to Godhead? Do we want to train new devotees to think that a lower standard is just as good as the highest standard? We also have to ask ourselves: “What do new devotees think, when they see senior devotees practicing and promoting a lower standard and claiming it to be just as good as the highest standard? New devotees can become discouraged when they realize senior devotees are not serious in their devotional practice and they might consider finding a better place to learn about devotional philosophy, culture and practice. If we think ISKCON should offer the best devotional training, we must take chanting most seriously. It is not a cheap thing.

Why aim for something lower than the best? Do you want excuses or do you want results?

Your servant,

Ajit Krishna Dasa

“I’m on the Hiiiiiiiighway to Krishna!”

Imagine that the practice of Krishna Consciousness is like driving on a highway where we gradually get closer and closer to our destination – pure love of Krishna. 

Can you see Krishna? He’s at the very end of this road. He’s waving at you!

On each side of the highway there is a ditch. We want to avoid driving into the ditches for an easy ride back to Krishna. But to avoid driving into these ditches we must be able to spot them, so how do they look?

The First Ditch

“…nor should one accept the rulings of devotional service which are more than what he can easily perform. ” [Nectar of Devotion, chapter 7]

Prabhupada explains that if we try to follow more rules than we can easily perform then we are sure to be negligent which is offensive and thus our progress towards pure devotional service is hindered. There is also another danger, namely that we will get frustrated because we are not able to live up to our ideals. Such frustration can make us give up Krishna Consciousness.

So don’t try to do more than you can!

The Second Ditch

“…to maintain material attachments, even after understanding so many instructions on this matter. ” [Nectar of Devotion, chapter 8]

As you have probably already recognized this is the last part of the tenth offense against the Holy Names. It basically says that we should not accept less rules and regulations than we can follow. If we are able to follow a specific standard of devotional service it is an offense to decide to follow a lower standard. 

So don’t follow less than you can!

Use Lights

If we are driving in the middle of the night and our lights breaks then we are more likely to drive into one of the ditches even though we know how they look. This breaking of lights might be compared to our distracted mind that, among other things, tries to convince our weak intelligence that we are so spiritually advanced that we can easily follow the highest standard of devotional service or that we are so fallen that we  need to follow a lower standard than we actually can. In this situation we need some lights that works. The best lights comes from the bona fide spiritual master:

om ajñāna timirāndhasya
jñānāñjana-śalākayā
cakṣur unmīlitaṁ yena
tasmai śrī-gurave namaḥ

“I was born in the darkest ignorance, and my spiritual master opened my eyes with the torch of knowledge. I offer my respectful obeisances unto him.“

The lights of the spiritual master will keep us on the road so that we can gradually make progress towards our goal.

The idea of neither doing too much nor too little is universal. If we are training for a marathon and start our training by running too long and too fast we can’t train for the next couple of days due to pain. And if we do too little we will not reach the level of strength required to run the marathon. But we we do neither too much nor too little our strength will gradually increase to the desired level. In the same way, if we stay between neither too much nor too little in Krishna Consciousness our spiritual strength and love for Krishna will gradually increase.

I wish you a happy and safe ride back to Krishna!

Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Hypocrisy

A sad story:

A liberal devotee who is known as embracing democracy and free speech maintains a website and invites devotees from all over the globe to contribute. But he ends up being accused of exhibiting what is called liberal hypocrisy because he bans two devotees due to their somewhat conservative views. Liberal hypocrisy basically means that you on the one hand preach that we should allow everyone to voice his or her opinion while you on the other hand censor people whom you don’t agree with.

One of the banned devotees gets so frustrated in his attempts to persuade other ISKCON devotees that they should be as conservative as he is, that he manages to convince himself – contrary to Prabhupada’s desires – that it is alright to leave ISKCON due to what he sees as decadence in the organization. He thus ends up being accused of exhibiting “conservative hypocrisy”, because he on the one hand insists that everyone should be as conservative as he is in following the process while on the other hand he’s being so liberal towards himself that he goes against Prabhupada’s desire and leaves ISKCON.

So the liberal ends up being conservative and the conservative ends up being liberal?

What a mess we sometimes create! I would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. My suggestion is that we all cool down and think for a moment before we pick up the pen. Prabhupada said that we should cooperate and settle disputes with a cool head instead of acting spontaneously on our irrational impulses coming from our agitated minds. Otherwise our spiritual lives and ISKCON will be finished. 

Prabhupada:

“Yes. That is everywhere. Even in, in our society, Kṛṣṇa conscious society, if there is no mutual cooperation, then it will fall down immediately. So as Rūpa Gosvāmī advises, the first thing is enthusiasm, utsāhān. Utsāhān dhairyāt tat-tat-karma-pravartanāt…(aside:) Why Śyāmasundara is not here? Tat-tat-karma-pravartanāt, sato vṛtteḥ sādhu-saṅga ṣaḍbhir bhaktiḥ prasidhyati. If you want actually to make progress in our devotional life, the utsāhān,enthusiasm, is the first thing. If you are lacking enthusiasm, then you should rest, instead of making too much agitation within the mind. The… If you cannot find out… Some, something has dropped in the water, in the river, you cannot see the things dropped within the water by agitating the water. Just stand still for sometimes. As soon as the water is settled up, you’ll see the things as they are. So as soon as our enthusiasm is agitated, it is better to sit down in any temple suitable and chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. There is no question of being disappointed. After all, we commit so many mistakes. That is human nature. To err is human. That is not fault. But try to rectify with cool head. That is required.”

Who Belongs to the Krishna Consciousness Movement?

Prabhupada:

“Suppose if somebody, if you say that “We are Kṛṣṇa conscious persons.” So one may challenge you, “First of all, explain what do you know about Kṛṣṇa?” That is quite natural. If you do not know about Kṛṣṇa, you have no right to say that “I belong to the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.” You have not right to say. So your position is like that, simply if you have a tilaka and a kaṇṭhi, that does not mean that you belong to the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement. Any cheater can do that. You must know the philosophy. If one challenges, you must reply. Therefore Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura has sung a song indicating these cheaters. He says, ei oto ek kalir cela(?). ”Here is a servant of Kali.” What kind of cela? Na te tilal golai mālā (?). ”He has got a tilaka and golai mālā, bās, that’s all.” He does not know what is the philosophy. If you do not know the philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, if you simply mark your body with tilaka and kaṇṭhi, then you are not proper servant, you are not qualified. So tilaka, mala, is necessary. Just like a policeman. A bogus man, if he dresses like a policeman, he is not a policeman. He must know what is the police law, criminal law, who is to be punished, who is not to be punished, what is criminality, what is innocence. All these things he must know.”

Understanding the Concept of “Dovetailing”

Prabhupada:

“This world is not permanent. So even though it is not permanent, it can be utilized for the service of the Lord. Nirbandhe kṛṣṇa-sambandhe yukta-vairāgyam ucyate. That is our philosophy. We don’t take the jagat as mithyā; we take it as fact, because it is emanation from the supreme fact. So just like gold earring is also gold—that is not iron—similarly, the, this material world is made of the external energy of Kṛṣṇa. Therefore we do not find anything here wrong. We try to dovetail everything in the service of Kṛṣṇa, because it is Kṛṣṇa’s. Just like one’s property must be enjoyed by the proprietor. Kṛṣṇa says that bhoktāraṁ yajña-tapasāṁ sarva-loka-maheśvaram [Bg.5.29]. He’s the proprietor of this world. Therefore everything dovetailed in His service for His satisfaction, that is devotional service.”

“The devotees think of Kṛṣṇa, act for Kṛṣṇa, eat for Kṛṣṇa, sleep for Kṛṣṇa and work for Kṛṣṇa. Thus everything is engaged in the service of Kṛṣṇa. A total life in Kṛṣṇa consciousness saves one from material contamination. As stated by Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Mahārāja:

kṛṣṇa-bhajane yāhā haya anukūla
viṣaya baliyā tyāge tāhā haya bhūla

If one is so expert that he can engage everything or dovetail everything in the service of the Lord, to give up the material world would be a great blunder. One should learn how to dovetail everything in the service of the Lord, for everything is connected to Kṛṣṇa.”

“…material qualification, that is not bad, provided they are engaged in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Otherwise it has no value. Material qualification, if they are engaged… Nirbandhe kṛṣṇa-sambandhe yukta-vairāgyam ucyate. If one is able to dovetail his material qualities in the service of the Lord, then that becomes a great qualification.” 

“Dovetail” Defined

From the Marriam Webster Dictionary:

¹dove·tail 
Pronunciation:
\ˈdəv-ˌtāl\
Function:
noun
Date: 
1573
: something resembling a dove’s tail ; especially : a flaring tenon and a mortise into which it fits tightly making an interlocking joint between two pieces (as of wood)

²dovetail
Function:
verb
Date:
circa 1656
transitive verb
1 a: to join by means of dovetails b: to cut to a dovetail
2 a: to fit skillfully to form a whole b: to fit together with
intransitive verb
: to fit together into a whole

A few other ways of saying the same thing:

American Heritage Dictionary:

To connect or combine precisely or harmoniously. 

To combine or interlock into a unified whole.

Dovetail Illustrations

Dovetail: 1) Mortises, 2) tenons and 3) joint. 

Sometimes a “dovetail bar” is used to dovetail:

Here is a variety of “dovetail pictures”:

Summing up

Instead of  renouncing this world we ought to “dovetail” the material energy, our material qualifications and desires in Krishna’s service. This means that we must “skillfully” “connect” them with Krishna’s desire so that they “fit” “tightly“, “precisely” and “harmoniously” to form a “unified whole“. Hence they will also become spiritual.

Beautiful, right?

Democracy is Inherently Atheistic

Democracy defined:

“Democracy is a form of government in which power is held directly or indirectly by citizens under a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατία [dimokratia], “popular government” which was coined from δήμος (dēmos), “people” and κράτος (kratos), “rule, strength”…” [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy]

“[G]overnment by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.” [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy]

What we learn from this is that democracy is nothing but an expression of a thieverish mentality exhibited as the impossible attempt to steal “the supreme power” from God and give it to “the people“. It has therefore been said that…

“democracy…is best explained in religious terms: as a doctrine founded on the theology of man.”[..] ”…democracy is literally a form of anthropotheism because it invests man with virtues that are conventionally attributed to God.” [...] “…democracy promotes the idea of the absolute autonomy of humanity, and hence identifies the condition of man as one of total freedom and total sovereignity…” [Anthropotheism, Sergio Knipe, The Initiate, Journal of Traditional Studies, Issue 1, 2008]

Democracy is a result of the asuric (demoniac) mentality of “I am this body” and “I am the Lord of all I survey” that the living entity acquires when he rebels against God. Srila Prabhupada would often explain how this contaminated consciousness must be given up if we want to be happy:

“In contaminated consciousness “I am” means “I am the lord of all I survey. I am the enjoyer.” The world revolves because every living being thinks that he is the lord and creator of the material world. Material consciousness has two psychic divisions. One is that I am the creator, and the other is that I am the enjoyer. But actually the Supreme Lord is both the creator and the enjoyer, and the living entity, being part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, is neither the creator nor the enjoyer, but a cooperator. He is the created and the enjoyed. For instance, a part of a machine cooperates with the whole machine; a part of the body cooperates with the whole body. The hands, feet, eyes, legs and so on are all parts of the body, but they are not actually the enjoyers. The stomach is the enjoyer. The legs move, the hands supply food, the teeth chew and all parts of the body are engaged in satisfying the stomach because the stomach is the principal factor that nourishes the body’s organization. Therefore everything is given to the stomach. One nourishes the tree by watering its root, and one nourishes the body by feeding the stomach, for if the body is to be kept in a healthy state, then the parts of the body must cooperate to feed the stomach. Similarly, the Supreme Lord is the enjoyer and the creator, and we, as subordinate living beings, are meant to cooperate to satisfy Him. This cooperation will actually help us, just as food taken by the stomach will help all other parts of the body. If the fingers of the hand think that they should take the food themselves instead of giving it to the stomach, then they will be frustrated. The central figure of creation and of enjoyment is the Supreme Lord, and the living entities are cooperators. By cooperation they enjoy. The relation is also like that of the master and the servant. If the master is fully satisfied, then the servant is satisfied. Similarly, the Supreme Lord should be satisfied, although the tendency to become the creator and the tendency to enjoy the material world are there also in the living entities because these tendencies are there in the Supreme Lord who has created the manifested cosmic world.” [Prabhupada, Bhagavad-gita, As It is, Introduction, Pre 1973]

Conclusion

Because ”[t]he false ego -”I am,” and ”It is mine,” [...] constitute the basic principle of material existence…” [Prabhupada] some humans are attempting to steal “the supreme power” from God and invest it humanity. This demoniac mentality ought to be exchanged with a service attitude towards God, recognizing Him as the Supreme Lawmaker. The living being is by constitution a servant of God and must therefore obey His order. God is by constitution the Supreme Power and creates the moral laws by which the living entities must abide (dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam). God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and omnibenevolent and therefore He is the most qualified ruler. He has the supreme overview and He has the power to establish a perfect system of government which will makes us happy. We humans on the other hand are selfishly motivated, doesn’t have the complete overview and doesn’t have the power to create and maintain a perfect system of government. Hence it is an illusion to think there is anything good in trying to steal “the supreme power” from God and invest in humanity, the state, a dictator or whatever. If we do this we are committing sin and creating misery for ourselves and others by disturbing the natural way in which the universe should be operating.

Prabhupada on Darwin and Moral Decline (Part 2)

What follows is the continuation of my debate with Rasasthali Devi Dasi at www.dandavats.com. The below is a new and revised version.

In my post “Prabhupada on Darwin and Moral Decline (Part 1)” I defended my first contention which was that Rasasthali Devi Dasi contradicts Prabhupada when she claims that Darwinism hasn’t been, to a large extent, the cause of the many social evils we see today.

In the following I’ll defend my second contention which is that Rasasthali Devi Dasi is wrong when she claims that Darwinism hasn’t been, to a large extent, the cause of the many social evils we observe today.  

There’s a lot to be said about this subject matter. My intention is to write a longer article presenting more detailed explanations and giving more evidence for the six points I will discuss here. So stay tuned at Vaisnava Apologetics! :-)

The Social Impact of Darwinism

I will argue that social evils follows logically and inescapably from Darwin’s ideas. Specifically I’ll mention six things about his theory of evolution which makes it an evil theory:

1. Leaving God out of the picture

Darwin’s ideas made it possible, like never before, to explain the world without the need for God or any sort of supernatural phenomenon. Darwin was himself heavily influenced by materialistic philosophy from his very childhood and from earlier and contemporary materialistic philosophers like Hume and Comte whom he liked. Even before he published his books he would lean towards the rejection of God. Evidence for this can be found in his earlier notebooks and manuscripts. At the end of his life Darwin would totally reject Christianity. His theory became a “scientific” justification for leaving God out of the picture – and Darwin knew this very well. 

The social impact of leaving God out of the picture is that from that it follows that there can be no absolute standard for right and wrong. We are left with no spiritual guidance. This is common sense which I show in my version of “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. Prabhupada agrees fully with this view which I document in my “Prabhupada and the Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. Making people think that we don’t have any need of God in order to explain the origin of and development of life leads naturally to disastrous moral consequences. It more then anything else confines people within the physical world by making them identify with the body.

2. Moral relativism

If we can explain everything without God it becomes irrational to believe in God. Darwin argued that all human traits including moral traits can be explained by his theory. This leaves us with moral relativism. The consequences of moral relativism can be seen in my article “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. The consequences are that all actions are morally equal. There can be no true normative moral statements. Thus it becomes impossible to condemn things like rape, murder, oppression, child abuse, slavery etc. And we also can’t praise things we normally consider morally good like helping people in need, caring for our children, spreading spiritual knowledge etc. Everything become equal. Darwin himself arrived at the conclusion that morality was simply relative. If we want to do good, he said, we can do nothing more than listen to what we feel is good. This moral relativism was condemned by Prabhupada (see “Prabhupada and the Moral Argument for the Existence of God“).

3. There is no progress in our evolution as a species without war, disease, famine and other sorts of pressures which eliminates the weak specimens and forces the strong to adapt and develop superior traits.

Darwin often praised war as a good thing and later thinkers and political leaders like Stalin, Lenin and Hitler used this to justify their wars. Some, like Lenin, even created artificial famine in their countries to eliminate the weak.

To say that there’s no progress without wars and that wars are therefore a good, and even a necessary thing, is in itself an evil doctrine. How accountable Darwin is for this is ultimately between him and Krishna. 

4. The use of eugenics.

Darwin favored, at least to some degree, the use of eugenics. Just like we can make better and stronger animals by not letting the weak specimens procreate and by letting the strong specimens procreate so we can make better and stronger men by hindering the weak in body and mind to procreate and by helping to strong in body and mind to do so. There are quotes were Darwin says that the poor should not be allowed to procreate and were he says only humans, among other animals, are so stupid as to take care of their weak specimens.

5. Racism

While some argue that Darwin was against slavery it’s still true that he was a racist. You’re not necessarily against racism because you are against slavery. Darwin’s books are filled with racism. He consistently wrote that the European white race was the most superior race and that blacks were almost like apes. This view follows logically from his evolution theory; some must be more evolved than others. The weak dies and the strong survives. Thus Darwin predicted that soon the “savage races” would die in the struggle for survival, being eliminated by the stronger races (the white caucasians).

6. Sexism

Darwin used his theory of evolution to explain why he thought that men were more intelligent than women. He argued that it must be because men were the ones who were out of the home struggling to get food. Thus they encountered more pressure and thus acquired superior traits, like a higher intelligence. In some places Darwin would say that women, like dogs, was good to keep men company. 

Conclusively

There is definitely a logical and historical link between Darwin’s ideas and evil. The six points mentioned above are in themselves evil and combined together gave a “scientific” justification for all sorts of social evils. Darwin was warned about the consequences, even by his own mentor and friends. But he didn’t do anything to prevent them. Nor did he protest when his cousin Francis Galton instituted a eugenics society. He also didn’t object to the sick way in which many contemporary thinkers took his ideas.

Besides the indisputable historical links between Darwin and all the socials evil performed in his name by later dictators, like Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, Mussolini and others are there also logical links between them? I think in some areas there certainly are. But in other areas it might be their adding something to Darwin’s ideas or seeing some consequences of the ideas that Darwin didn’t see or spoke about. Sometimes Darwin was inconsistent. This was the case in regard to his morality. He had his personal moral opinions which is inconsistent with the view that morality is relative. On the one hand the claimed that morality was relative, but on the other hand he claimed that slavery was wrong. So some thinkers simply took the logical consequences of Darwin’s moral relativism and rejected his inconsistent moral opinions. Darwin’s contemporary admirer Ernst Haeckel, who was a very outspoken racist and eugenicist, did this and claimed that moral relativism follows logically Darwin’s theory. He was right. Without Darwin’s theory it’s hard to see how these thinkers and dictators could have argued for their ideas and gotten away with their actions.

Darwin’s theory has been used as the building block for many social evils. It has fueled, inspired and “scientifically” justified things like euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, racism, satanism, forced sterilization, sexism, liberalizing sex and criminal justice, experimentation with humans and animals, wars, artificial famine, elimination of the inferior, eugenics and many other evils.

Darwinism permeates everywhere and makes people identify with their bodies and think that God is unnecessary. Therefore it is the number one evil theory on the face of the planet and therefore Prabhupada wanted it defeated almost more than any other thing. We can let Krishna decide precisely how much Darwin will be held accountable for propagating his ideas. But it doesn’t look good. Let’s pray that he will become Krishna Conscious and be protected from the bad karma.

Prabhupada on Darwin and Moral Decline (Part 1)

The following is a comment I wrote to a devotee at dandavats.com. View her comment to ISKCON Hungary here.

Pamho, agtSP!

Our process is to repeat the words of our spiritual master and therefore not contradict his words.

My first contention is that you are contradicting Prabhupada’s words when you claim that Darwin’s theory is not “to a large extent” “responsible for the moral decline of human society.”

My second contention is that you’re wrong when you claim that it is “unproven” that Darwins theory is “to a large extent” “responsible for the cause of the moral decline in our society.”

The first contention

Prabhupāda: “Darwin is a rascal. What is his theory? We kick on your face. That’s all. That is our philosophy. The more we kick on Darwin’s face, the more advanced in spiritual consciousness. He has killed the whole civilization, rascal.”

Prabhupāda: “That is nonsense. Darwin was a number-one nonsense. Yes. Rascal. He has confused the whole world.” Prabhupāda: “Full nonsense, this rascal. How much havoc he has done to the human society. A grand rascal, this Darwin. And he is taken as the basic principle of anthropology. The whole world has become…”

Prabhupada: “The Darwin’s theory, this theory, that theory, simply they are bewildered, thinking this body is the self.” Prabhupada: “So the modern civilization, according to Darwin’s theory, they are advancing to become animal. That’s it. Therefore they are claiming their forefathers are coming from monkeys.”

Prabhupada: “Because they are standing on a wrong theory, all their calculations are wrong, and people are suffering. The rascal Darwin’s theory. So many, based on this foolish theory, wrong conception of life. So we have to challenge, protest. defeat. This will be our work. Our worshiping of Kṛṣṇa, that is our internal affair. The external affair—we need to establish this theory. Otherwise they’ll be leading this society. Misleading. They are misleading, not leading, misleading. So we have to stop this misleading.”

To sum up: According to Prabhupada Darwins theory has killed the whole civilization, that is has confused the whole world, that is has caused a lot of havoc in human society, that is bewilders people be making them identify the body as the self, that it makes people become animals, that it misleads people and makes them suffer. Darwins theory has created so much trouble that Prabhupada want us to stop it.

Thus I think it is proven that my first contention is correct: You are contradicting Prabhupada.

Arguments for my second contention is coming soon.

Ys, Ajit Krishna Dasa

Prabhupada and “The Moral Argument”

When I  first wrote “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God” I experienced that some devotees were very critical of the argument. Some argued against its validity, others against its premises. Since many devotees are not so experiences in the use of logic and reasoning I realized how important it is to show them that and how Prabhupada used this argument. I made some research and now I’ve written a text on called “Prabhupada and “The Moral Argument for the Existence of God”. It’s too long to post here, so I’ll provide a link to it and a short excerpt:

Excerpt:

“Prabhupada would often use logic and sense perception when arguing for God’s existence. He used many of the traditional arguments for the existence of God such as the Design Argument (Teleological Argument), the First Mover Argument (Cosmological Argument) and the Moral Argument (Axiological Argument). The article at hand deals only with how Prabhupada used the “Moral Argument”.”

“I will attempt to go one step at the time first showing 1) how he defined “absolute moral laws”, then 2) how he argues in favor of the truth of premise 1, then 3) how he argues in favor of premise 2 and at last 4) how he infers the conclusion that God exist from the premises according to the standard rules of logic.”

Link

http://docs.google.com/View?docid=d83tkq3_18gxzdzkc8

Please note that the text is part of a larger text and not completely finished. But it is definitely readable.

How to Deal with Philosophical Deviations in ISKCON?

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.