Talk:A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

Minor clarifications

Few points which I would like clarification on :

1. 2nd para, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarsvati Thakura — what is "Srila" ?
2. 2nd para, it was requested — use of the passive voice looks odd here
3. 2nd para, spread Vedic knowledge throughout the English language — was this supposed to mean spread knowledge throughout the English speaking world ?
4. 2nd para, Honourific — why the capitalization ? is it part of the title in some way ?
5. last line, Qutub — whats that ? why is it used before "Lord" ?

Jay 17:57, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Good questions. I think that Srila is a Bengal version of Shri but this is just guessing. Andries 20:44, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think Srila (also: Srila Sri) is just a superlative form of Sri. Mkweise 21:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Srila" is an adjective of the noun "sri."

"Sri-la" means one who possesses wealth (i.e rich), opulence, beauty, etc. "Sri" also means the three Vedas. So "srila" means learned personality who knows the three Vedas.

As "sri" means Srimati Radharani, "srila" means one who possesses the lotus feet of Srimati Radharani is his heart.

As "sri" is the name of one of the six ragas or musical modes (masculine), "srila" means expertise in music, especially in the "Sri" raga.

Jan

What is this long chapter about "Shape and origin of the image of Christianity" doing in this article? Bhaktivedanta Swami did not preach Christianity after all, although he preached in English. I think the subject is not so important after all and one or two paragraphs would be quite enough. Lonehermit 20:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I removed following text from article. Its out of topic and very long. Are there any objections?--213.226.171.132 18:47, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Issues" removed (verbatim copy from ISKCON). Jan

Found images

Image:Swami Prabhupada.jpg

File:Prabhupada.jpg

Image:Prabhupada.jpg

Criticism

Shouldn't there be a section in this aticle about the controversy surrounding this figure? He has generated a lot of negative press with his claims of his translation of the Bhagavag-Gita being the only accurate version and his ideas of disciplic succession as well as his very fundamentalist interpretation of the Gita. This is substabtial enough that I think it should be included in the article.

IN REPLY: I would strongly disagree that Srila Prabhupada ever generated 'a lot' of negative press. After he passed away in 1977 there was much controversy within ISKCON, but obviously he was not physically present at the time. His translation of the Bhagavad-Gita was simply as the majority of Gaudiya Vaishnavas had described it in the past, and he quotes the previous acharyas throughout his work. Srila Prabhupada's books have been internationally praised for their detail and clarity, and for bringing Vedic culture to a worldwide audience. GourangaUK 16:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

His work has been praised but it has also been criticized, even by some Sanksrit scholars who exchanged letters with him -- I think at least one of these exchanges was included on one of hs books. Likewise, Ramananda Prasad and others have criticized his commentaries as being overly communalistic with an emphasis on Bkahti Yoga as opposed to the Vednatic aspects which other translators have emphasized. He does quote previous acharyas often, but not everyone accepts the chain of disciplic succession that he suggests is proof that only he can tell translate the Bhagavad-Gita "as it is". Runa

The movement that he founded received quite a lot of opposition and criticsm and was also involved in some scandals, esp. in the US, but the person of Prabhupada is quite uncontroversial, in sharp contrast with several other gurus who acquired followers in Europe and the USA. Andries 19:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Whenever a great person does something good, there will always be a 'not so great' person somewhere who will criticise. There has been no serious criticism of Srila Prabhupada as a person. He is famous for rigidly living by the philosophy he taught to others right up to, and including, the moment of his death. Any criticism of Gaudiya Vaishnava philosophy, or discussion as to different translations of the Bhagavad Gita quite clearly belong to different pages than this one.

GourangaUK 09:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not criticizing him as a person nor did I even omply that he persojally did not live his philosophy or that he was ever involved in any scandal -- I simply mentioned that there are many that do not agree with his strict interpretation of the Gita and that this should be noted. Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I admit that there is a lot of truth in it, but there are so many gurus in the West who were embroiled and scandal and controversy that it has become noteworthy to mention that this guru was not involved in scandal and controversy. Andries 20:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

North American ashram section:relevance

Why is this New Vrindavan ashram so relevant for Prabhupada? There are quite a lot of communities dedicated to the spiritual heritage of Prabhupada. Why mention only this one? This does not sound balanced at all to me. I propose to remove that section. Andries 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, seems like a random inclusion Dwayne Kirkwood 23:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Re-direct

I strongly disagree with this page re-directing to the 'Abhay Charan De' page, as Bhaktivedanta Swami is more popularly known by his religious title. This is the title with which he signed all his letters and books.--GourangaUK 14:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of link

I have deleted the link to "Krishna.org" because the site--at http: //books.krishna.org --extensively infringes on copyrighted material. In fact, it offers entire books online, in conscious and willful defiance of the copyright holder, the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (BBT).

One can verify this with the rights and permissions department of the BBT.

In mentioning the infringer's URL above, I have deliberately added a gratuituous space so it won't be a clickable link.

--J. Swami, trustee, the BBT. 16 April 2006

Revisions by Mel Etitis

Mel - don't do re-reverts without discussing. You do not seem to be an expert on the area. There are people here who have spent a decade studying the field. Thanks! -- Raga 13:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Bhagavad Gita and Bhagavad Gita As It Is are two separate entries. Hare Krishna is very relevant. Why do you keep removing those links?
• The use of the word charismatic is not a POV. Study the history of ISKCON and contrast with the general usage of the word Charismatic]]. Reverting that out is just plain silly. -- Raga 13:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Raga, In Wikipedia we usually do not mention in the wikipedia:see also section articles, like Bhagavad Gita As It Is that have already been mentioned in the main text, because that is superfluous. On the other hand, I would like to see a bibliography section with selected works by Prabhupada where among others the Bhagavad Gita As It Is can be listed. Andries 13:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, please note that Prabhupada is listed in list of charismatic leaders, though with only one reference. Andries 13:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[After edit conflict]
I'd add to Andries' explanation that "charismatic" is inherently PoV, and that telling other editors that they shouldn't edit an article because they're not sufficiently expert is both offensive and against the spirit of Wikipedia. It's also peculiar when the edits in question have nothing to do with knowledge of the subject, but concern Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Oh, and I had discussed the reverts with the editor whom I reverted.

Regarding the list — it carefully doesn't say that the people listed are charismatic, but that they have been described as such; that's in line with NPoV. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is another opinion that Prabhupada can be classified as a charismatic leader in the sense meant by Max Weber, though mentioned on the website of ISKCON it was written by somebody who has an scholarly, not uncritical approach to ISKCON. [1]Andries 13:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There are scholarly books in the field of religious studies which describe Prabhupada's leadership style as charismatic I really don't see that there is an argument here. We may like a person or we may not, but still we can say that they are charismatic because they inspire others. It is not a personal opinion. GourangaUK 14:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Charismatic leader is a classification based on an abstract sociological concept and not a fact and is hence an opinion and should be voiced as such according to Wikipedia:NPOV policy. Andries 15:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

If the term is being used in the technical sense in the article, then that needs to be made clear. I'll do that now. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• The usage of the word charisma in the context of religious leaders is obvious - this is a very common, standard usage. Having to specifically define it looks just silly to me. Dr. Ketola of Helsinki University has even written a dissertation studying Bhaktivedanta's charisma and its effects in the development of ISKCON. "Charismatic" is not a word like "cool" or something in the context of studies of religious movements. -- Raga 17:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Also, look at the context where the word originally was. "As the Society's charismatic leader, Prabhupada, by his personality and management, was responsible for much of the growth of ISKCON and the reach of his mission." Why not just let it be there. Just link that to the Charismatic authority page. -- Raga 18:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

1. I'm a little confused as to why one editor is reverting (and changing good to bad English; see, for example, the MoS concerning foramtions like "July of 1978") while a different editor is giving the reasons.
2. More importantly, as has been made clear above, the term "charismatic" is either PoV or technical. If it's being used in the former sense, it has to go; if it's being used in the latter, it has to be explained. (If it were being used in the context of a work in the field of the academic study of religions, one might assume that readers would understand it; that doesn't apply in a general work of reference.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mel - I was not so concerned with the minor changes of English in the reverts, I have no problems with your improvements on this. Previously the introduction to article had been made barely readable by the insertion of the reference to Max Weber, which I see you have improved greatly. Probably Raga has not reverted any edits because he is more polite than myself. I will look for references for the factual statements. Best Wishes, GourangaUK 13:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The term "charismatic" can be linked to instead of a flow-interrupting explicit explanation. Andries 16:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term should be made clear, in order to avoid the appearance of PoV. Doing this using a link is akin to putting it in the small print. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mel - in regards to the 'See also' section, Bhagavad Gita As It Is is not linked in the text (it's a different article to Bhagavad-Gita, and Hare Krishna is important enough to be included twice. I don't see the benefit in deleting them? GourangaUK 11:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"Bhagavad Gita As It Is" is linked (in the section Mission to the West). As for the other link, it's not an issue of harm; "see also" means "see also" — every other article in Wikipedia follows that approach, why do you insist that this one be different? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mel, please see Featured article Nostradamus which contains multiple references to astrology and has it in the See also section as well. Where's the problem? GourangaUK 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

See Also should include the most relevant page links to the subject. I understand they are present in the article, but the importance isn't implied as much so as if they are present in "See Also". Personally, besides re-adding the two removed entries, I'd also add ISKCON, as it is very relevant to the subject matter of this article Dwayne Kirkwood 22:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Death and Passing

Mel, can you explain to me how the use of the word "passing" is a POV while "death" is not? -- Raga 22:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the relevance, as "passing" wasn't involved (an anon had replaced "death" with "samadhi"; you do read the article before challenging my edits don't you?), but I'd say in general that "passing" is a euphemism, unsuitable in a reference work. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

References regarding Books

I have included a sample of appreciative quotations regarding Srila Prabhupada's books from the academic community below, but could not find these in electronic format. I am assuming the reference now inserted from the BBT will be enough to show where the information is coming from.

• "No work in all Indian literature is more quoted, because none is better loved, in the West, than the Bhagavad-gita. Translation of such a work demands not only knowledge of Sanskrit, but an inward sympathy with the theme and a verbal artistry. For the poem is a symphony in which God is seen in all things....The Swami does a real service for students by investing the beloved Indian epic with fresh meaning. Whatever our outlook may be, we should all be grateful for the labor that has lead to this illuminating work." - Dr. Geddes MacGregor, Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern California

• "The scholarly world is again indebted to A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Although Bhagavad-gita has been translated many times, Prabhupada adds a translation of singular importance with his commentary...." - Dr. J. Stillson Judah, Professor of the History of Religions and Director of Libraries Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, California

• "I can say that in the Bhagavad-gita As It Is I have found explanations and answers to questions I had always posed regarding the interpretations of this sacred work, whose spiritual discipline I greatly admire. If the aesceticism and ideal of the apostles which form the message of the Bhagavad-gita As It Is were more widespread and more respected, the world in which we live would be transformed into a better, more fraternal place." - Dr. Paul Lesourd, Author, Professeur Honoraire, Catholic University of Paris

• "Srimad-Bhagavatam is a valuable source material and cannot but be attractive to serious students and scholars of religion and philosophy. I recommend this series, to anyone, as an important and useful reference work." - Dr. C. P. Agrawal, Chairwoman, Department of Humanities, University of Michigan.

• On Caitanya-Caritamrita: "It is a remarkable document of great historical and sociological importance, giving a picturesque presentation of the socio-religious climate in the India of Sri Caitanya's times and the far-reaching social and religious changes wrought by him. As a literary piece, it is regarded as a work of great merit, having no parallel in the whole of Bengali literature. As a religious text, its sanctity is comparable to that of the Bhagavad-gita.

"This English edition translated by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada is superb. It contains the original Sanskrit and Bengali verses with their English transliteration, synonyms, translation and elaborate purports, easily bearing testimony to the author's profound knowledge of the subject." - Dr. O.B.L. Kapoor, Emeritus Chairman and Professor, Department of Philosophy, Government Postgraduate College, Gyanpur, India.

• "I think the best feature of the Hare Krsna movement is that it is providing scholars with excellent translations of the rarest books on krsna-bhakti." - Dr. Lawrence Shinn, Professor of Religion, Oberlin College.

I do not intend to add any of these quotations into the article, maybe the one from Dr. Lawrence Shinn could be suitable? GourangaUK 11:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

1. These read like the back cover of a book — they're not really suitable for an encyclopædia article. Moreover, few of them have sufficient citiations.
2. You keep adding links to the "see also" section when they're already present in the article. I've already explained this. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

ad 1. I agree with you, but I have a reference for a short compliment (Melton 1986) that can be included.

ad 2. Formally you are right, but a see also section mentioning key topics related to Prabhupada's, life, teachings and backround do not hurt the article. I consider it quite silly to have a revert war over what is clearly a very minor issue. Andries 10:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Bhaktisiddhanta

Regarding: Bhaktisiddhanta (Sanskrit: One who has both devotion and knowledge) I thought that Bhaktisiddhanta mean that bhakti is siddhanta, and this is what people giving and reveiving this title had in mind. Same for bhaktivedanta etc. --195.252.126.73 01:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

I added the neutrality disputed tag because this article reads like an ISKCON promotion article. Certain claims are made which are only supported by ISKCON publications which have no statistical backings whatsoever.

1. It is not a fact that Prabhupada's books are highly respected by the acadamic community. There is no statistical support for this claim
2. It is not a fact that BBT is the largest publisher in the field of Indian religion and philosophy. This is merely a claim by BBT without statistical support either.
3. There is also no statistical or independend scientific backing on the impact on indians, which are merely promotional claims by the ISKCON movement
4. Clarification on why seven of the eleven guru's are no longer part of the GBC has been removed
5. Additional information on Prabhupada's views on other religious traditions have been removed in regard to Hinduism.

PietjePrecies 11:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear PietjePrecies, I will reply to your comments in turn. Please note that it is not standard Wikipedia procedure to post your subject at the top of a discussion page.

• 1) This claim is referenced in the article as being a quotation of the BBT - how could it ever be presented as a statistical fact?
• 2) Again this is referenced as a quotation from the BBT - I'm am not sure how one could prove such statistics, but if it was grossly untrue then I doubt the BBT would be able to print it as a statement within all of their published works.
• 3) Again how could this be shown with statistics? - but it is highly evident on any trip to India near to the location of an ISKCON temple.
• 4) This is an article on Bhaktivedanta Swami, not an article on the International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Would you expect to find this information in Encyclopedia Brittanica? This is an online encyclopedia after all, not a soapbox for people's grieviences against an organisation.
• 5) In light of the tone of your recent edits I am not suprised the information you included regarding Hinduism was removed, it's easy to take certain quotations out of context. I do not believe you were adding them with a neutral and encyclopedic idea in mind.

If anyone else has other opinions please add them.

Regards, GourangaUK 13:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear GourangaUK,

1. I'm curious are you suggesting that this claim as referenced as a quotation of the BBT is encyclopedic? If it cannot be proven why claim that Prabhupada's books are highly respected by the acadamic community if there is no backing whatsoever? There is no prove that this is true. There are no figures which state which part of the acadamic community actually "highly respect" the books. This claim is presented as a fact, which is not verified. Therefore I suggest that either the claim is presented as a claim or removed from the article.
2. If there are no statistics on how many books are published by BBT on Indian religion and philosophy in comparison to other publishers throughout the world, this claim has no backing whatsoever and should not be presented as a fact. The fact that BBT is able to print it as a statement within all of their published works is hardly evidence that it is true. No scientist or acadamicist in his right mind would consider this type of proof as scientifically or academically valid. BBT can claim whatever they want in their books, this is no prove whatsoever en therefore not encyclopedic information.
3. I see O Govinda changed the text already. Interestingly he requested large scale changes to be discussed here first, but fails to do so himself. Still after the changes, the fact that the prime minister regards ISKCN important does not mean the majority of the Indians share this view. In addition the prime minister's speech isn't about the impact of Prabhupada on Indians, it is about spreading religious books over the world. Would you expect this information to be found in Encyclopedia Brittanica?
4. If this is an article on Prabhupada and not on ISKCON what relevence is there in the Guru's how succeeded him in ISKCON. If there is mention that only four remained (one who passed away already, so it is in fact three), then it should be clarified why the others have left (which most of them did not, they were evicted). I have no grievances with ISKCON since I have no involvement whatsoever with them. Still these are facts. I agree that this is no soapbox for grievances, bit is neither promotional material for ISKCON which this article is clearly meant to be. [Personal attack removed] as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
5. Then what is the context of the quotation according to you? Prabhupada clearly bashed Hinduism, and did not respect them. If this article is neutral, than why is there only mention of Moses, Jesus and Mohammed and not for example the Mayavadis on whom he looked consideraly less favorable. Unless other religions are included it is not considered neutral, since the header states "Views on other religious traditions". So yes, my edits had the purpose to make this article more neutral and balance the "praise Prabhupada" tone of this article.

I understand that your and O Govinda's point of view may differ here, since your usernames suggest you are ISKCON members. PietjePrecies 16:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, PietjePrecies, for contributing your thoughts on this article. Addressing your original points:

• You were right that the article gave no support for the claim about academic respect. I've therefore sourced the claim. Such respect is not a matter of mere statistics. When leaders in an academic field respect someone's work, such respect is significant.

• Your comment that no backing was given for the claim of "impact on Indians" was also well taken. I therefore deleted the unverified statements and replaced them with objectively verifiable facts.

• I won't comment now on the items you think should be included. But let me go on to the point about the BBT.

Apart from the BBT, the press known for the largest-scale distribution of literature on Indian religion and philosophy is Gita Press, Gorakhpur. Their website is down just now. But. . . .

A blog says about Gita Press, "The press has published over 37 crore books so far." (That's 3,700,000.) At another site someone says, "They have published about 56 million Gitas by this time." And at a site at IIT Kanpur someone says, "Founded in 1923 to propagate the Gita, over the years, the institution has made available more than 300 million copies of the Gita, Ramayan, Bhagvat, Durga Saptashati, Puranas, Upanishads, and other books in Sanskrit, Hindi, English, Gujarati, Tamil, Marathi, Bangla, Oriya, Telugu, Kannada, and other Indian languages."

Whichever of these numbers we accept, the Gita Press has been vigorous in distributing low-cost Indian scriptural literature on a mass scale.

Meanwhile, since 1989 one ISKCON member, as a service, has diligently kept track of the "scores" for ISKCON's distribution of BBT books. In January 2002 he reported that between 1989 and 2001 ISKCON had distributed 420,075,089 books, plus 420,075 periodicals. (This doesn't include books distributed since then or through non-ISKCON channels, such as bookstores, online outlets, and so on. Nor does it include audio publications or database publications.)

Statistics on a year-by-year basis are also available.

This information, I believe, will appear in the doctoral thesis of the late Tamal Krishna Goswami, which is awaiting publication.

These numbers, I believe, more than justify the statement that the BBT is "the world's largest publisher of books in the field of Indian religion and philosophy."

(In electronic publishing, by the way, at www.aleksa.com you can check out the statistics for the BBT's website, Krishna.com. This too helps make the BBT the "largest publisher" in its field.)

Adding this much information to the article, even as a footnote, seems too much. Do you agree that these statistics are sufficient? (If not, what *would* be?) And how would you suggest we deal with presenting this information?

I think your critical comments have contributed to making this a better article. Thank you again for participating.

Respectfully, O Govinda 05:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear PietjePrecies, I believe user O Govinda has addressed your issues in the above and in his recent edits. Best Wishes, GourangaUK 11:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear O Govinda,

Thank you for contributing to the discussion. In reply to the points you addressed:

1. Such respect is a matter of statistics. Quoting a few academicist doesn't mean the academic community has high respect for something. I am part of the academic community and it really doesn't work that way. Claiming that someone is an academic leader means that person has made huge contributions to the academic community worldwide , has a huge following on his theories worldwide, and publishes in major international academic papers on that particular subject. So it really is a matter of statistics. None of these are proven in the sources.
2. The speech you placed in the article is not about the impact on Indians and is therefore misleading. Also Vajpayee was not prime minister of India in 1988. He wasn't prime minister until 1996, so not only has the text nothing to do with the impact on Indians, also the facts are incorrect.
3. It would serve wiki better if you would come with statistics rather than claiming that the BBT is the largest publisher on Indian religious and philosophical books. Whether these statistics justify the claim is in my opinion irrelevant.

In addition you removed part of my comment claiming it was a personal attack. In addition Prabhupada was well aware of the fact that in his organisation temple of presidents beating their wives and child-abuse, against which he did nothing. There is no mention af that in this article. How can this be a personal attack according to Wikipedia:No personal attacks? It isn't directed at the contributor and as such doesn't fit in any of the following category:

   * Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.
   * Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
   * Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.)
   * Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
   * Profanity directed against another contributor.
   * Threats of legal action.
   * Threats of violence, including death threats.
   * Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages. May be direct or indirect.
   * Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.
   * Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly-accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion. Suggesting a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit a certain link, that contains the substance of an attack.

This is ofcourse unless you regard a statement about Prabhupada as a personal attack.

Since the discussion is still going on, I returned the Neutrality disputed tag.

In addition since neither you nor GourangaUK has any comments on the text I think should be added, I will add them shortly.

Glad that the discussion has contributed to a better article.

Regards,

PietjePrecies 12:23, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, PietjePrecies.

• What proportion of academics have to give a thumbs up before their approval amounts to general academic respect? I agree with you that the matter is subjective, so I have replaced the statement with an objectively verifiable one.
• I agree, also, that the subhead "Impact on Indians" was off target. I have replaced it. You were also right about the wrong date for the Prime Minister's speech. I have fixed that. (Since you have the VedaBase, you can verify the year of the temple opening by searching under "Back to Godhead" with the keywords "Delhi temple.")
• I am puzzled by your comment about the BBT. You say, "It would serve wiki better if you would come with statistics. . ." But then you say, "Whether these statistics justify the claim is in my opinion irrelevant." If you would please explain further, I can try to address your concern.

• I agree with you, also, that in the context of the Talk page your raising questions about child-abuse and wife-beating did not constitute a personal attack. Your comments were removed not by me but by UKGouranga. I think his removing your comments was unjust.

I will comment on the text you wish to add. But--goodness!--Wikipedia is time-consuming. Allow me a bit more time, okay?

Thank you again.

Respectfully, O Govinda 13:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the statement because it was slanderous (i.e quite clearly untrue) and of the nature of a personal attack against the article's subject: Swami Prabhupada. Such statements have no place in a Wikipedia article or on the discussion page. However, as I am out-voted I will leave it be at that. GourangaUK 14:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This topic-- concerning alleged knowledge of child abuse--continues in further discussion below, where I have placed it under a separate subheading. O Govinda 05:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear O Govinda,

I highly appreciate the work you put into the article. It is really quite time consuming, and I feel the article has become more objective.

About the BBT you already changed it to something which I feel is satisfactory.

About the section "Respect in India" I feel the title fits better, but the question rises: Why specifically mention "Respect in India"? What is the relevance for an encyclopedic article. If respect in India should be mentioned then why not respect or disrespect in other countries? It seems a bit off...

Thank you, PietjePrecies 00:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear PietjePrecies,

I'm glad we're both satisfied with the BBT section. We've both worked hard.

Why specifically mention respect "in India" and make no comment about the response in, say, Australia or Guatemala? First, India is the subject's home country. Second--and more important--it's the home country of the philosophy and culture he taught. That makes the recognition there a topic of special interest. Also, though he may have been accorded some degree of respect or disrespect elsewhere, India is the place where the response to him has been truly worth noting.

Best wishes. O Govinda 05:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Views on other religious traditions

(I have added this subhead, so as to separate several strands of discussion. Though the subhead is here, the discussion begins under "Neutrality" above. O Govinda 05:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

PietjePrecies, regarding Srila Prabhupada's views on Hinduism:

I'm sure that as a member of the academic community you can appreciate that a term like "Hinduism," although perhaps appearing simple, bears a complex set of meanings. To understand Srila Prabhupada's views about "Hinduism," therefore, a simple quote or two will not suffice. With such quotes, we might perhaps show that he was entirely against it or, alternatively, all for it.

Either view would be simplistic. To understand his views about "Hinduism," we need to examine them patiently and be sensitive to a deeply nuanced discourse.

In brief: Srila Prabhupada advocated scrupulous adherence to scriptures and a tradition of belief and practice that most Indologists, most sociologists of religion, and in fact most Hindus would easily recognize as Hindu. Yet "Hinduism" is something the scriptures and tradition themselves do not mention. And, in the view of Srila Prabhupada and the tradition he represents, much of what is popularly called Hinduism is at variance with the scriptures and tradition.

We thus have a situation in which "Hinduism" is something Srila Prabhupada, we could say, was both for and against.

Further, Srila Prabhupada often said that what he advocated was "sanatana-dharma." This term (often taken as being the Sanskrit term that "Hinduism" is meant to represent) is complex. But (again I'm being brief) Srila Prabhupada explained it as denoting every living entity's eternal (sanatana) occupation (or "engagement" or "duty") (dharma). Our sanatana-dharma, he taught, is our eternal function of service in relationship to God.

Since that function is eternally inherent in every living being, sanatana-dharma differs from what we popularly understand as a "religion"--that is, a sect or church one can leave or join. As wetness is to water, as sweetness to sugar, so sanatana-dharma to the living being. A Christian, therefore, may become a Hindu, a Hindu a Christian, but in all circumstances the sanatana-dharma of the living being stays the same. In that sense, for Srila Prabhupada the term "Hindu" did not go deep enough.

Apart form this, "Hinduism" tends to be an exceedingly ambiguous term, usually taken to encompass a smorgasbord of beliefs and practices. What is Hinduism? Well, what is "Indian religion"? It could be anything from a life of piety and learning to a life involving ghost worship or "left-handed" sexual rites. Taking that into acount, was Srila Prabhupada in favor of "Hinduism"? Well. . . .

Whether (and in what sense) "Krishna consciousness" is Hindu or not Hindu has been a topic of extended discussion--among Hare Krishna devotees themselves, between devotees and academics, and between devotees and the Hindu community.

An example might clarify the matter. (I borrow this from Rembert Lutjeharms, a Hare Krishna doctoral candidate at Oxford.) Am I an American? Theologically, I have to say no. I am "an eternal spiritual being," a soul--neither American nor Indian, white nor black, and so on, since these are but temporary designations or labels. Yet when I arrive at an international airport and the immigration officer asks me my nationality, I answer without qualms that I am an American. In the same way, I may say, with equal truthfulness, that I have nothing to do with Hinduism and yet I am, in another sense, a Hindu.

In view of the complexity of these issues, and the necessary brevity of Wikipedia entries, I suggest that merely inserting one or two quotations as representing "Srila Prabhupada's views on Hinduism" would so oversimply the subject as to do a disservice to both the subject and the reader.

Respectfully, O Govinda 02:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear O Govinda,

I agree with you that Hinduism and Sanatana Dharma are a complex set of meanings. A few simple quotes don't fully explain Prabhupada's meanings. Still it remains a fact that Prabhupada did not look kindly on views which differed from Gaudiya Vaishnavism and that ISKCON distinguishes itself from "mainstream Hinduism" (if I may put it so bluntly) that:

1. It actively seeks to convert people i.e. 'evangelizes'
2. It is 'intolerant' towards different views on the scriptures.

For example calling them 'a dead religion' with 'no philosophy' (72-02-04.VAI) or 'a cheating religion' (731006BG.BOM). (from Folio database 'The Complete Works of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada' (n.d.) and the Folio database 'The pre-1965 works of His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada', Version 1.0, March 1995.) In India Prabhupada himself walked out of a Bhagavad-gita conference in Indore in 1970 when he heard Mayavadi interpretations of Bhagavad-gita (Lilamrta, Vol. 4, 147-150). Mayavadis are offenders to Krsna (CC Madhya 17.129) and hearing from them causes 'everything to become spoiled' (CC Madhya 6.169).

To complete the section Views on other religious traditions I feel Prabhupada's clearly had outspoken views on "mainstream Hinduism" should be added.

Respectfully, PietjePrecies 01:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear PietjePrecies,

My time is a bit short this evening, so this is just a short note.

The point about evangelizing is more a distinction than a controversy. India does have a long history of contending philosophical schools, with much debate among them and with consequent "converts" from one school to another. But for the moment let me leave that aside.

The point about "Hinduism" being "a dead religion" with "no philosophy" is a subject to which I suspect we can't do justice in this article, for the reasons I've mentioned before.

The more prominent issue is the one of Prabhupada's strong disagreement with "Mayavadis." (All right, let's call it his "intolerance" of them.) This is in fact a headline philosophical issue. Srila Prabhupada staunchly represented the "personalist" school of Indian philosophy, espoused by Caitanya and earlier by such teachers as Madhva and Ramanuja. Though that school and the "impersonalist" (Mayavadi) school, represented especially by Sankara, agree on many points, the two schools reach a point at which they are utterly at odds. And Srila Prabhupada, rather than trying to paper this over, chose to bring the difference between the two schools to the forefront.

This, I think, is certainly worth highlighting, especially given the common impression in the West that the teachings of the "impersonalist" school are what Hinduism is "really all about."

I can try to write up something about this. But other engagements are pressing me, so I'll need a few days.

Okay?

(Now that I think about it, Prabhupada's attitude towards the "Mayavadi" school contributes considerably to his attitude towards "Hinduism," so perhaps I could somehow work this in.)

Many thanks again.

Respectfully, O Govinda 05:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Alleged knowledge of child abuse

{I have added this subhead to separate this strand of discussion. Though the subhead is here, the discussion begins under "Neutrality" above. O Govinda 05:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC))

GourangaUK, why is it clearly untrue? For your information here is the reference:

Rochford, Burke E., Child Abuse in the Hare Krishna Movement: 1971-1986, ISKCON Communications Journal ICJ - Vol. 6, No. 1, June 1998, P. 49 http://www.iskcon.com/icj/6_1/6_1rochford.html

For ease of finding it I quoted the passage here:

"When I was five and a half years old, I'd been in gurukula (Dallas) since its insemination (about three years). My dad had gone to Dallas (against the wishes of his temple authority who only cared about my dad's money-making ability on sankirtan) after discovering bruises all over my body on a Rathayatra [festival] visit. After much discussion with the school authority he found that he could not get them to change the policy of daily beatings. He removed me from the school. Very disillusioned he nearly left ISKCON. On hearing that Prabhupada would be in LA, we went there. When Prabhupada saw me he asked why I was not in the gurukula. My father told him that he'd removed me because of the daily beatings. Prabhupada told him that I belonged in gurukula and that if my dad had a problem with the treatment he should work to resolve it . . . [Prabhupada] did nothing to resolve the situation. Instead of going himself or sending one of his top people to resolve the problems he sent my dad who had never had any power. Needless to say when my dad returned to Dallas nobody listened to him. If a problem arose at some temple or other, Prabhupada was more than willing to go or send someone effective to handle the situation, but for the kids he sent my dad who was effective at getting people to give him money. (Anonymous b 1996) (See footnote 26 for further discussion of Prabhupada's response to allegations of child abuse.)"

For ease of finding the footnote I added it here too:

Questioning of Prabhupada's role in the child abuse that occurred in the gurukula has only recently surfaced as an issue among second generation youth. In fact the VOICE Web page has given considerable attention to the issue. Those implicating Prabhupada charge that he knew that children were being physically punished, yet failed to directly intervene, or have leaders under him put a stop to such behaviour. It does seem clear from Prabhupada's letters that he was aware, as early as 1972, that physical punishment was being administered to children in the gurukula (see for example, Prabhupada 1992:797, 799). There is also evidence suggesting that he did intervene (Prabhupada 1992:797). In a 1972 letter to a disciple who had complained that her child was being mistreated in the gurukula in Dallas, Prabhupada wrote:

"But you may be assured that I am always anxious about the welfare of my disciples, so that I am taking steps to rectify the unfortunate situation . . . [C]hildren should not be beaten at all, that I have told. They should simply be shown the stick strongly. So if one cannot manage in that way then he is not fit as a teacher . . . [H]e must have two things, love and education. So if there is beating of child, that will be difficult for him to accept in loving spirit, and when he is old enough he may want to go away-that is the danger (1992:793)."

Yet physical punishment and various forms of abuse only escalated in the years to follow. Some former gurukula students believe that Prabhupada ' . . . did not implement appropriate measures to guarantee the safety of children in his movement from his disciples. [And] that the programmes he established and interpretations of his words greatly fostered an environment under which child abuse flourished' (Hickey et al. 1997).

PietjePrecies 00:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear PietjePrecies,

Your original statement read as:

"In addition Prabhupada was well aware of the fact that in his organisation temple of presidents beating their wives and child-abuse, against which he did nothing."

I would describe the above as an inflammatory statement and also an untrue one for various reasons. Firstly the term 'child-abuse' is so ambiguous that it could mean anything from a whole spectrum of actions - it sounds very sinister in this context wouldn't you agree? - What you actually discuss in the above account (be it 100% correct or not? I don't know?) is in particular reference to physical discipline, and if this became physical abuse in some cases within a large schooling organisation, ultimately headed by Prabhupada some thirty years ago in a time wherein physical discipline had still been prevalent in English state schools not so many years beforehand.

In the evidence you give Prabhupada himself instructs : " [C]hildren should not be beaten at all, that I have told. They should simply be shown the stick strongly. So if one cannot manage in that way then he is not fit as a teacher . . . [H]e must have two things, love and education." So to say that Prabhupada 'did nothing' is untrue, even in this piece of evidence. Here he is instructing that the problem should be fixed. Now wether you feel that his instructions and later actions were sufficient enough or innapropriate is a personal viewpoint, and would probably be determined on which secondhand accounts and stories you have heard from people, or read throughout the years. I don't know what exactly Prabhupada did in this regard, and neither do you - It is very speculative. But certainly to say that he did nothing is untrue even by the evidence you have given. I don't see the role of Wikipedia as attempting to 'find the truth' in such matters. Definitely we can say that Prabhupada did not promote such harmful and un-loving activity. Can we really justify using an encyclopedic article to judge a man who lived some thirty years ago and who was managing an organisation of some many thousands of people over a period of 10 years? Who could do that 'perfectly' without anything negative ever ocuring by any one of the thousands of people involved? Wouldn't it make more sense to just stick to verifiable factual statements and descriptions on the person as a whole. What he stood for and what he tried his very best to promote? Ys, GourangaUK 08:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV status/cleanup

This article is part of the NPOV backlog. I see there is still a discussion going on, so I'll check back later. Remember to reach consensus, se WP:CON. In the mean time, I've tagged a few places in the article for missing citations. This article could use even more cites in my opinion, see WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV.

Additionally, I've changed the sentence The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, established in 1972 to publish his works, has thus become the world's largest publisher of books in the field of Indian religion and philosophy. to: The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust was established in 1972 to publish his works. The original claim does not cite a credible external source, but instead cites Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, and there's no cite for the claim there. Further, the sentence: In India ISKCON has become a highly respected organization. Srila Prabhupada has been honored by the Government and praised by the highest leaders of the country., here, both claims should be cited or the sentence rewritten in a more neutral tone.

You might also consider having a Criticism or Controversy section to address some questions, provided they are about the person and not about work of his covered elsewhere in WP. Please leave a comment if you want, and keep up the good work!. -- Steve Hart 19:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You have done great work with this article. Thanks!-- Steve Hart 21:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada → A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada – Naming conventions -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Support: It appears general usage is as per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support —Dwayne Kirkwood 01:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support per naming guidelines and precedence like J. R. R. Tolkien and George H. W. Bush (that's just two examples). —this is messedrocker (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral - I don't see that it really matters much either way as long as the article information remains the same when moved, a new re-direct is put in place and the discussion page is copied over to the new location. GourangaUK 10:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

For reference, can someone cite similarly named articles as the proposed new name? Thanks Dwayne Kirkwood 00:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You can use the Wikipedia "All articles" feature like this. A. A. Ames, A. A. K. Niazi, A. A. Milne, etc. There are also countless counterexamples. If you look at the end of User talk:Koavf, you'll see that nom. feels most or all articles should fit this standard and says there's a naming convention but others vehemently disagree. I'm simply going by usage in reliable sources. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool thanks. I just wanted to see that it was actually the naming standard and not just a proposed new one. I will add my support. Dwayne Kirkwood 01:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Nom. has a point if you look at this convention but there are also exceptions listed and the whole page is simply a guideline, not a policy. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It took me 20 minutes to even see the difference: OCD? Jiva Goswami 02:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is part of Wikipedia's naming conventions, shouldn't you have just been bold enough to move it without discussion on the talk page. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There's already a redirect with history there. And the convention is not quite as clear-cut as you might think. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree I moved several dozen such pages (see contribs in my sig), but this one could not be moved over the redirect. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I still wonder about an extended discussion over a space, but Bhaktivedanta Swami himself used no space between A and C. Jiva Goswami 02:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Moved. Teke ^(talk) 04:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory regarding Prabhupada's death

It deserves a mention by the mere fact it exists. What is the problem? It makes no pretention that it is based on reality, mereley that speculation exists regarding this issue... Sfacets 14:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In regards to O Govinda's removal of the text - The theory is not generally considered a 'respectable' or common-sense one due to the absence of any verifiable supporting evidence. Not exactly what I'd class as encyclopedic content, so I'd vote not to include it. See quotations from Jaggannatha dasa who worked on the project and also a link to his full article below:

"...at the end of the day, when things began to wear down, in my mind, and the credibility began to erode, through things like, you know, wanting to hear backwards messages in Srila Prabhupada's words like, "Save me, save me, I'm being poisoned by my disciples, " or whatever ridiculous thing that it was in the background there... You take the Prabhupada whispers and bits and bobs and you can turn them into anything you want. And I believe its been picked up by people with an agenda..."

Above quotes taken from Poison CD Hoax

Ys, GourangaUK 15:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The mere fact that a speculative rumor exists does not justify its inclusion in a serious encyclopedia. O Govinda 12:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The rumour is not included, mention of its existance is. Also the rumour draws from more sources than just tghe one mentionned above by GourangaUK...

Sfacets 00:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The mere fact that a speculative rumor exists does not justify mentioning the existence of that rumor in a serious encyclopedia. The article, by necessity, leaves out volumes of well-verified facts about the subject's life. Those facts deserve precedence. --O Govinda 11:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that this should deserve a mention, just to show that this theory exists, even if people do not believe it. After all, if we did not include it, it would be biased against the theory. Midnightblueowl 26 September 2006

As stated above - there are many provable facts about Bhaktivedanta Swami's life which have not been included in this article (it would be too long if we did). Thus, just because a theory exists doesn't mean we have to include it - it depends on how significant the thing is. Why give detail on a theory supported only by a very small number of ardent followers when much more significant events are being left out? Also any discussion regarding criticisms of Iskcon, is best included on the ISKCON page, (as it already exists) rather than repeating the same information here. Ys, GourangaUK 08:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I see your point, Midnightblueowl. And thank you for contributing. I agree that not including a theory may indicate one is biased against it. But that's part of what makes a high-quality article high quality: The editors discriminate between information that's essential, or at least high in value, and content that is low in value and truly not worth including. Thanks to PietjePrecies, GourangaUK, and others, this article has continually improved. Let's do our best together to keep improving it and keep its standards high.

Cordially, O Govinda 10:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent bot actions

Why did User:Thijs!bot remove the Japanese transliteration for this article? I have studied Japanese, and to my knowledge, "シリラ バクッティー ヴェダンター スワミ プラブパード" is a correct transliteration. The bot information claims to understand a number of languages, Japanese not being one of them. Siyavash 15:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no clue on the Japanese translation, but it seems wrong for the bot to simply remove it so have reverted the action. Ys, GourangaUK 16:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) Siyavash 17:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Siyavash. I surely don't understand Japanese, however, I understand that the article on the Japanese wikipedia does not exist. We only add interwiki-links to existing pages, not to possible future articles. That's why I removed the link. Every bot which is authorized to remove links by their owner, will do the same. Thijs! 19:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah I wasn't aware that the language links were only to be there for existing articles on other language wikis. Thanks for setting that straight. Siyavash 20:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Stamp Image

According to the policy on Fair Use, the image of a stamp must only be used to "illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)". This does not mean that it can be used to illustrate the fact that the Govt. of india made a stamp in his honour, because in that case it is still illustrating the "things appearing in the stamps design". Sfacets 12:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of people throwing policy infront of commonsense. This stamp is being used to illustrate to point that the article's subject (A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada) has been given some form of recognition within India. I could easily just be a 'fair-use' image, without the stamp tag. In which case please remove the stamp tag, rather than the image. Ys, GourangaUK 11:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And I'm tired of people violating copyright. The Indian stamps are all under the copyright of India Post, which ONLY allows stamps to be used in philatelic articles, that too IF the stamps are published in black and white. If you are claiming fair use, that can't apply because of the simple fact that it is NOT a philatelic article. Please read WP:FUC, which allows usage of stamp images under Fair use criteria:

to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)

and Category:Fair use stamp images, which states that:

As the template mentions, stamp images in this category should not be used solely as a cheap way to illustrate articles. In addition to the problem that images are often altered for artistic reasons and thus may not be factually accurate representations of their subject, Wikipedia:Fair use criteria does not allow for it.

So, if you have a problem with the policy, get a consensus to change the policy. Otherwise, please stop reverting the copyright violation stamp image into the article.

As for your notion of removing the stamp tag, then the stamp is a copyright violation under India Post's copyright rules. If you claim "Fair use" that too is not valid for the reasons mentioned above. Again, if you have problems with the policy, get a consensus to change that, and until then, please refrain from using the stamps incorrectly. Thanks. --Ragib 11:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay it is clearer now, and I have also just seen the discussion here. Will not revert in future, now a definite reason has been provided. Best Wishes, GourangaUK 11:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Greatest example to become a Brahmin in true sense

Great follower of Varnashrama dharma and best example for every born Shudra Hindu to become a Brahmin. Brahmin-gaand-maaru 21:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)