Hindsight - a reply to most points

http://kuruvinda.com/

Jan Mares


Resignation memorandum of my old friend Willem surprised me but not that much. Since several years back we exchanged emails related to controversial issues in and around ISKCON. He was looking for answers which I thought were for preaching but it seems he in the first place wanted to preach to himself, being in the midst of paradigm collision. As fas as I can say, these were important factors why he chose the 'blue pill':

- his guru's falldown
- not reading even the whole CC (as admitted in personal letter), what to speak of books by previous acaryas, etc.
- prominent focus on the external brought by the need to take care of material needs of his family
- asat sanga, esp. with bitter ex-devotees
- giving in to the modernist rationalist paradigm based on pratyaksa and anumana and considering it a default one, although without any support


> the society that Gelberg so aptly describes defining itself as "the repository and bastion of all goodness, all meaning, all truth, all decency, all meaningful human attainment"

Where is this definition found in ISKCON documents? It seems as a strawman of great proportion needed for Gelberg's analysis and refutation.

> there is simply no way for anyone to comprehend the effect of guru fall-down other than the former disciples

In essence, it's a personal choice based on free will. My siksa guru chose another GV lineage, fallen gurus chose maya lineage. It's tough but the sky doesn't fall.

> Along with the guru fall the paradigms that kept him standing

This is a subjective view completely foreign to Vedic tradition. It would also have to work otherwise: when someone leaves the Western modernist paradigm, the paradigm would fall. This is not the case.

> Within this realm, tolerating scriptural quackery and its exploiters is a choice we make every day — certainly one I made, against the better advice of my screaming conscience

Specific examples? Conscience vs. scriptures is something not experienced by devotees, just the opposite. But mind vs. scriptures is a regular occurence.

> Vedic culture nonexistent, limited to India and around, Vedas distorted: 

The main problem of this claim is that traces of this culture are found worldwide, sometimes with surprising details (e.g. the Dharma bull losing his legs in each age paralleled in Lakota legends). 

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/index.php

> 10. In his purport to SB 1.8.46  Bhaktivedanta Swami accepts that 640 million soldiers were killed in the 18 days of the Kurukshetra war, which roughly translates to 25,000 deaths per minute.

> The Stri Parva of the Mahabharata enumerates the casualties of the war thus: "One billion 660 million and 20,000 men have fallen in this battle. Of the heroes that have escaped, the number is 240,165." 

It appears in the file m11025.htm of online Ganguli edition at sacred-texts.com

11.26.9-10 in Muneo Tokunaga ITRANS Sanskrit critical edition:

\EN{0110260091}dashaayutaanaamayutaM sahasraaNi cha vi.nshatiH . {y}

\EN{0110260093}koTyaH shhashhTishcha shhaT chaiva ye asmin.h raaja mR^idhe hataaH .. \SC..

\EN{0110260101}alakshyaaNaaM tu viiraaNaaM sahasraaNi chaturdasha .

\EN{0110260103}dasha chaanyaani raajendra shataM shhashhTishcha paJNcha cha .. \SC..10 

Needs analysis.

Srila Prabhupada's lecture SB 1.8.46 - Los Angeles, May 8, 1973:

Prabhupada: So Maharaja Yudhisthira was very much aggrieved. He was thinking, Vaisnava, that “I am a petty king, and for giving me the throne, so many people have been killed.” That is the greatest war
within the recollection of five thousand years, Kuruksetra, battle of Kuruksetra. What is this figures? Six million, four hundred thousand people died in that battle. What is the statistics of the last war? How many people died? Is there any statistics?
Devotee: Two million.
Prabhupada: Two million. And here it is six million.
Devotee: 640,000,000.
Prabhupada: Eh? Last war?
Devotee: No, Kuruksetra, 640,000,000.
Prabhupada: Oh. Six hundred forty?

I heard it is a misprint. Prabhupada was surprised and mentioned 6,400,000 which is more probable.

Mahabharata clearly states 18 aksauhinis were fighting (astadasaksauhiniko, SB 3.3.14) and one
aksauhini is 21,870 chariots, 21,870 elephants, 109,350 infantry and 65,610 cavalry (SB 1.8.48 purp. says 109,650 infantry and 65,600 cavalry but the previous numbers are found in SB 1.16.34 note, 9.15.30 purp. which is a quote from Mbh Adi and again in SB 10.50.4 word by word). This makes together 3,936,600 soldiers (without chariot and elephant drivers and others). So 6,400,000 could be the right number if everyone, including a supporting staff like drivers, etc., is counted.

> The existence of a vastly superior global civilization, complete with airplanes and nuclear weapons, before 3,000 B.C.E. (going back millions of years cyclically) with people of increasing size and life span, the emperors of which ruled the entire Earth.12

Some references to Sumerian and Tibetan records (with author's effort to explain their length by reduction to months or days...):

http://www.etf.cuni.cz/~prudky/mptexty/99spurek_metuzalem.html

> The true existence of cannibalistic demons, ghosts, witches, magic powers, curses, talking animals, shape shifters, flying mountains, eagles capable of interplanetary flight, and other fabled entities and abilities.15

At least ghosts, witches, magic powers, curses, shape shifters are reported from around the world even nowadays.

> The Sun being closer to the Earth than the Moon and being the only source of light in the entire universe.18

http://web.archive.org/web/20080624134716/http://www.geocities.com/caitanyamahaprabhu/moonthing7.htm

The Puranic cosmos is a whole issue of itself. Interpretation attempts:
Danavir Goswami (dr. D. Holtzman) - Vedic Cosmos (dvd)
Sadaputa das (dr. R.L. Thompson) - Mysteries of the Vedic Universe (book and dvd)

> The existence of 28 planets that make up a hell in which sinners are tortured beyond belief for millions of years for even trivial transgressions.19

Hells are quite well known from NDEs.

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/dying.htm
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyklopedie/cesta_do_pekla_cz.htm

Time scale and experience of time in hell is different from the earthly one. It seems long while on earth only a short time went by. This may explain the notion of 'eternality' of hell.

> Evil influences exerted by solar and lunar eclipses that occur when the Sun and Moon are swallowed by the disembodied head of a demon (sometimes representing an invisible planet), requiring people to either stay home or bathe in a sacred river.21

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/library/Eclipse.zip

http://www.salagram.net/eclipses-page.htm

> 22. Bhaktivedanta Swami's overemphasis on unquestioned obedience to the guru and his absolute position as a divine intermediary is unprecedented.

BG 4.34, etc.

What about the procedure of choosing guru in Haribhaktivilasa?

> What I do write off is the notion that a possible sentient origin of existence is literally and at all times in its original form a dhoti-wearing cattle herder boy 

Whom many ISKCON devotees saw by their own eyes and even some outsiders like psychics recognize His power. E.g. power of His names, holy texts, holy water, prasadam, symbols like tilaka prove efficiency against negative people and other entities (including exorcism), etc.

> The narrow confines in which the acceptance of Chaitanya as God is to take place is no exception and based purely on the assertions of gurus in the Gaudiya line.

Not really, sastra and sadhus join them (e.g. Vallabha).

http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/caitanya.htm

> the unattainable nature of its lofty goals ... Even after decades of sincere practice without the promised results they will trudge on in depression (or blissful self delusion)

Too subjective.

> naivety-born insistence that scripture be taken literally

saksad upadesas tu srutih - "The instructions of the sruti-sastra should be accepted literally, 
without fanciful or allegorical (gauna or laksana-vrtti) interpretations." (Jiva Gosvami, Krsna sandarbha 29.26-27)

> gurukula experiment

It was an experiment to transplant Vedic gurukula to the Western environment largely antithetical to it. Simple copying couldn't work due to several factors. Possibly the most important one was that of the staff:

Vedic gurukula teacher: mature grihastha (Sans. kula = family)
ISKCON gurukula teacher in 70s: immature (young) brahmacari

Separation of children and parents, although seemingly standard in Vedic culture, isn't part of the modern Western culture, aside attempts of totalitarian regimes to monopolize education (indoctrination).

> 1) he knew his minions well enough to prevent what happened

Depends on Krsna if He warns the guru about certain people. Guru isn't automatically a prophet.

> aberrations ranging from polygamy to counter productive, wholesale science-bashing.35

SP instructed his disciples to follow local laws. That rules out polygamy.

He didn't do wholesale science-bashing. Otherwise he couldn't promote yukta vairagya.

> 35: In 1968 Bhaktivedanta Swami made a notorious public claim that the Apollo project would fail.

From my pov it failed since after several missions the project was abandoned. No permanent station, no inhabitation - all these remained in words only. I consider it simply a relic of Cold War.

> Equally undeniable is the surprising extent of misogyny, bigotry, religious and cultural elitism, homophobia, and promotion of social regression

All these require an individual analysis. The main problem is the paradigm collision.
The 'Who is Crazy' essay is helpful in this regard.

> rather than discredit advancement and discovery as demoniac ugra-karma.39

> Based on the gist of this verse and other references ugra-karma quickly became ISKCON jargon for anything done in the secular world that doesn't vibe with the ideology of "simple living, high thinking."

This I consider a misinterpretation. Specific quotes and contexts needed where ugra karma is used for something else than 'horrible activity', its literal meaning. SP used it for animal slaughter, nuclear weapons (BG 16.9 p.), drugs, nightclubs (SB 7.14.10 p.), neglect of agriculture and cow protection (SB 10.5.8 p.), dynamite (LCFL 2), oil drilling (room conversation, New Vrindavan, June 24, 1976), etc.

> A good example of this would be: "Development of factories and mills is called ugra-karma, or pungent activities, and such activities deteriorate the finer sentiments of the human being and society to form a dungeon of demons." SB 1.11.12, purport.

Let those with an experience of working in factory make their own opinion. From my pov, both the factory environment and the people working there are prominent examples of low-class asat sanga.

> I stood by in good faith as it was stripped of individuality, wrapped up in dogma, rubberstamped with doctrines, and used as a marker in dusty old books from a medieval culture.

> Throughout all these years my limitless curiosity had been slowly replaced with increasing restrictions, my earnest interests sealed in paradoxes, and my sense of wonder drowned in axioms.

Sounds like self-pity. But unless one allows to become a puppet no one can turn him into one.

> a version fabricated by ancient oriental cattle herders, modified throughout the ages for cultural and political reasons, and served up in modern times by agenda-driven literalist messiahs.

Pretty much the modern academic view of Vedic culture. Judge by the fruits. Cui bono?


--

update 10.3.2011


Hari Hari Varnadi,

> A friend of mine pointed me to your response to my manifesto. I was
> pleasantly surprised.

Thanks

> My manifesto is a personal conclusion of a
> personal journey and as such scarcely warrants this type of scrutiny.

My comments are rather short and could be elaborated on.

> Then, on a closer look, it didn’t even strike me as a personal,
> friend-to-friend response. After all, if it were, why not write to me
> personally?

There was no email contact. Your previous Pamho emails were cancelled. Then I tried google without success and stopped.

> It looks more like a rough draft meant to be commented on
> by others – as if serving as some kind of collaborative public
> rebuttal. I hope I’m wrong, because I have always appreciated our
> friendship, regardless of distance or opinion.
> Still, if I’m right, then please regard this as a preemptive effort to
> minimize misinterpretation. I am sure neither of us wants to see a public
> response to my manifesto riddled with assumptions and premature
> conclusions.

No, it's only my private reaction to your text based on how I know you from Sweden and your letters. I'm not aware of any collaborative public
rebuttal underway.
I can add this reply to it and you can link to it.

> > As far as I can say, these were important factors why he chose the 'blue
> pill':
> >
> > - his guru's falldown
>
> Not an important factor at all.

It looked like that to me from your text. Maybe not so profound factor as for others but still important unless guru disciple relationship is just a formality.

> I never had a significant personal relationship with him and was
> therefore not affected by his departure

One of the factors in ISKCON guru issue which requires serious attention, imho. It's related to the gurukula issue.

> , which took place after
> disillusionment had already led me to relocate to the US. Some people
> seem to have a need to read all kinds of meaning into the part of my
> manifesto where I mention guru fall-down, but the truth is that in it
> I am only concerned with the dynamics. Harikesh’s departure merely
> brought those dynamics up-close. Had it been an important factor, I
> would have left ISKCON when he did or shortly thereafter.

Clarified.

> > - not reading even the whole CC (as admitted in personal letter)
>
> I find it curious that you pick this very late scripture as some kind
> of requirement for the prevention of leaving ISKCON.

So you have a problem with both ancient and late scriptures?

Editing the whole CC helped me to understand how important this text is, summarizing the Bhagavatam, showing examples of Bhagavata devotees, bridging ancient and more recent times and much more.

'Leaving ISKCON' can be understood in various ways since ISKCON can be defined in various ways. I mention this in my text on membership in ISKCON.

I see three versions: leaving ISKCON as a group, leaving also Vedic theistic paradigm and leaving theism as such. While groups come and go, paradigms stay.

> As I see it,
> Bhaktivedanta Swami’s edition of the CC is not a prerequisite for any
> level of spiritual life, no matter how badly certain individuals and
> groups need this to be true. Both spirituality and vaishnavism existed
> long before even the original CC, or Gaudiya vaishnavism for that
> matter.

Otoh, I see it as a crucial text prerequisite to understand Gaudiya Vaisnavism and to identify oneself with it (or not).

> Now, aside from this, I have read most of the Teachings of Lord
> Chaitanya, which summarizes the core teachings of the CC,

Me too but that's not at all a substitution for full CC as I realized only after editing it.

> have sat
> through literally hundreds of lectures on the CC throughout the years
> and have followed several seminars on its contents, including one at
> the VIHE in Vrindavan. I have discussed its philosophy and import with
> many of its scholars, as well as the shortcomings originating from the
> speedy, unprofessional way it was produced. I have studied the
> background of the CC as composed by Krishnadas in its historical
> context and compared to other biographies on the life of Chaitanya;
> vital historical knowledge sorely lacking in ISKCON -- which has
> traditionally resisted any information from Gaudiya history not in
> line with its own doctrines.

Well, ISKCON is a too wide term in this regard.
Do you mean apasampradayas?

> > what to speak of books by previous acaryas, etc.
>
> What is this notion based on?

Your letters to me. Possibly not actual anymore.

> I have read and studied more books of
> other teachers in the Gaudiya line than of Bhaktivedanta Swami,
> particularly those of Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Visvanatha Chakravarti,
> and Jiva Goswami. Yet, here too, outside of the elitist thought of
> later Gaudiya vaishnavism none constitute a requirement to remain in
> ISKCON’s group consciousness. I know plenty of people who have deeply
> studied the CC and works of the previous teachers and left ISKCON
> because of it.

Unless you specify who are they and their conclusions...

> > - prominent focus on the external brought by the need to take care of
> material needs of his family
>
> It’s hard to judge an inner life and thoughts when they are not known
> to you. The sporadic email exchanges we have had over the years do not
> qualify such judgment. At most you could formulate a very subjective
> idea based on anecdotal evidence or hearsay, especially since you have
> never experienced family life yourself.

That's a thing common to many devotees who have to work outside.
Your letters, not hearsay, didn't show that you're an exception. But that's your life.
In this life I concluded already in my teens that family life would be a distraction from a quest for meaning of life and realizing it which I considered of primary importance. My experiences never suggested otherwise and continue to do so.

> > - asat sanga, esp. with bitter ex-devotees
>
> I guess it is easy to read bitterness into situations like this, but
> that is not always justified. Utilizing a definition of asat-sanga
> confined to the interpretation of ISKCON doctrine doesn’t lend it
> further credibility, either.

Well, I stick to sastric definitions. Interpretations can be considered as factors as per time, place and circumstances.

I've met quite a lot of these devotees and read their online discussions.
It's interesting that although they probably left for different reasons, their mentality is very similar, like a groupthink. I could cut-n-paste here from my replies to them but it's faster to write. Very interesting for sociologists.

> Among my personal friends you will find neither bitter ex-devotees,
> nor corrupt devotees in good standing. The vast majority of my
> personal friends are sober devotees from all walks of life. There are
> plenty of “ex-devotees” that harbor no bitterness whatsoever, but
> simply saw things for what they are and, like me, decided to move away
> from the ISKCON cult into either secular life or other spiritual paths
> (vaishnava or not). I find the idea that leaving an institutionalized
> religion or losing faith in its doctrines is solely caused by “bad
> association”, “sin” and “blasphemy” is narrow-minded and self-serving;
> the espousal of such tenets by remaining members even more so.

No, there're more factors. Usually a several are needed for someone to leave. But that doesn't make these concepts (in quotation marks) unreal as the modernist paradigm tries hard to.

> > - giving in to the modernist rationalist paradigm based on pratyaksa and
> > anumana and considering it a default one, although without any support
>
> Again, that is not for you to judge, Jan. It is, as a matter of fact,
> rather presumptuous to claim to know what I “give into” or “consider”
> without me telling you explicitly, or you, at the least, understanding
> the import and extent of my studies.

There're not many paradigms to choose from. If your opinions correspond mainly with one, the influence must be coming from it.

> >> the society that Gelberg so aptly describes defining itself as "the
> repository
> >> and bastion of all goodness, all meaning, all truth, all decency, all
> >> meaningful human attainment"
> >
> > Where is this definition found in ISKCON documents? It seems as a
> > strawman of great proportion needed for Gelberg's analysis and
> > refutation.
>
> Other than the irrelevance of particular ISKCON documentation to
> directly support its general tenets, it doesn’t take a rocket
> scientist to recognize them. You, as an ISKCON devotee, should be able
> to readily do so, my friend. Are you really making a case here that
> ISKCON’s doctrines do not encompass claims to the above? That would
> truly surprise me.

I simply ask for refs. ISKCON espouses ideals but that doesn't mean it's already collectively reached those ideals. That's not possible since it contains people on all kinds of levels of advancement. Ideals are to be reached by individuals with the society support.

> >> there is simply no way for anyone to comprehend the effect of guru
> >> fall-down other than the former disciples
> >
> > In essence, it's a personal choice based on free will. My siksa guru
> > chose another GV lineage, fallen gurus chose maya lineage. It's tough
> > but the sky doesn't fall.
>
> That is exactly my point. The way a disciple comprehends the fall-down
> of his or her guru, or his change to another lineage for that matter,
> is individual – just as it was for you. For you and me the sky didn’t
> fall. For others it did fall, even if only figuratively. To impose
> your sole viewpoint on how such an event should be seen or experienced
> onto others does not bear witness to compassion or broad-mindedness.
> You’d be more objective to state that you can only speak for yourself
> as far as your conclusions go.

Already at the beginning of my reply I stated that I express my views. What else should I express? I'm not appointed spokesman for anyone.

> >> Along with the guru fall the paradigms that kept him standing
> >
> > This is a subjective view completely foreign to Vedic tradition.
>
> Again, exactly my point. It is subjective to the disciple experiencing
> the event, not to your understanding of it or its perceived place in a
> tradition that has existed as an ideal only. It is easy to find utopia
> in the sole presentation of success stories. Try not to lose the
> larger context.

I focus neither on success nor on failure stories. I prefer to see all.

> > It would also have to work otherwise: when someone leaves the Western
> > modernist paradigm, the paradigm would fall. This is not the case.
>
> Even in Western modernism the departure of a representative allegedly
> embodying a paradigm causes that paradigm to fall for the followers of
> that representative – sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently.
> Politics are a great example in this regard, as are role models of the
> athletics world and famous artists -- not to mention the likes of Osho
> and Sai-Baba.

There's a difference in allegiance level though.

> >> Within this realm, tolerating scriptural quackery and its exploiters is
> >> a choice we make every day — certainly one I made, against the better
> >> advice of my screaming conscience
> >
> > Specific examples?
>
> You can find plenty of examples of highly exploitable quackery in the
> various “vedic” scriptures, ranging from the Vedas proper to the
> Manu-samhita, from the Puranas to the Ayur-veda -- such as the
> injunctions to justify and enforce control over women,

'Control over women' is a Marx-feminist construct based on the notion that sastras are created by ruling male elites. Without proving, it remains a strange idea.
High status of protection of women in sastras defies this too.
So which kind of exploitation do you refer to? Domestic violence? Less pay?

> the nonsense about what causes a male or female birth,

You mean the relative amount of sexual fluid of parents? My understanding is
that it's not so off as it looks, being expressed in non-scientific terms.
Modern science holds that chromozome combination XX creates a female body, XY a male body. So the amount of X vs. Y chromozomes in the mix is the result of their specific physical amounts.

> or the status and treatment
> of lower class human beings, to name a few. ISKCON has a pretty good
> track record in the application of scriptural exploitation.

Status and treatment of nondvijas is by nature different from that of dvijas. Modernist paradigm claiming that everyone is _physically_ equal is nonsensical and leads to big time exploitation by various -ism ideologies based on it. I remember the Communist slogan that everyone has the same stomach so everyone should get the same salary. Stands to reason that Communists themselves didn't follow it. They were, after all, 'more equal' than others and their mad leaders considered themselves supermen or gods on earth.

> > Conscience vs. scriptures is something not experienced by devotees, just
> > the opposite. But mind vs. scriptures is a regular occurence.
>
> You generalize like this often. Do you believe that everyone else’s
> experience should be like yours? I cannot entertain a comment that
> (again) claims to speak for a large population.

See above about my personal opinion and keep reminding me.

> What I can do is express my surprise about your apparent unfamiliarity
> with the myriad of unconscionable statements found in scripture and
> those so ambiguous that they easily can be and have been interpreted
> and applied in unconscionable ways by their professed practitioners.

Then they also need to bear consequences. The proper way is to consult acaryas when something seems problematic.

> Conscience versus scripture is very real even for devotees, as
> exemplified in scripture itself (Vyasadeva’s burdened conscience
> before writing the Bhagavata Purana) and by Bhaktivinoda Thakura, who
> explains that scriptural teachings not sanctioned by one’s own
> conscience can be rejected.

Vyasadeva felt dissatisfied due to not eulogizing Krsna enough (SB 1.5.9), not that he did something sinful to be undone/repented. After all, there's BG 15.15.

'Atmanas tusnih' is found e.g. in Manu samhita 2.6. The only problem is to tell it from the mind.

> > Vedic culture nonexistent, limited to India and around, Vedas distorted:
> >
> > The main problem of this claim is that traces of this culture are found
> > worldwide, sometimes with surprising details (e.g. the Dharma bull
> > losing his legs in each age paralleled in Lakota legends).
> >
> > http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/index.php
>
> The premise here is that the “vedic” version of these traces (if at
> all valid) lies at the root of every other version. Just as valid is
> the concept that the occurrence of these similar and parallel traces
> may have simpler explanations (Occam’s Razor) and that the “vedic”
> version may be the one predated by external versions. Vaticinium ex
> eventu. In this light, sporadic parallel myths and legends do not make
> inscrutable proof for the existence of a cohesive global “vedic”
> empire, especially when overshadowed by vast amounts of evidence to
> the contrary – evidence found in decades of research that devotees
> usually don’t care about. I have done my homework on the Indian
> nationalism that gave rise to such flawed revisionism as found in The
> Arctic Home in the Vedas and ISKCON’s revival of that spirit in the
> poorly researched speculations of a. o. Michael Cremo and Stephen
> Knapp.

Hypothetical external versions need to be evaluated.
'Sporadic' is definitely not the word.
Give some refs to that vast amounts of evidence to the contrary please.

Indian nationalism was a reaction to British colonialism. It's clear that both tried to trump the opponent by pushing their own versions using whatever was useful. So I regard both of these sources as largely unreliable without further research.

I had some exchanges with Srinandanandana P. and Drutakarma P. about certain interpretations. The first one didn't convince me.

> > I heard it is a misprint. Prabhupada was surprised and mentioned
> > 6,400,000 which is more probable.
> >
> > This makes together 3,936,600 soldiers (without chariot and elephant
> > drivers and others). So 6,400,000 could be the right number if everyone,
> > including a supporting staff like drivers, etc., is counted.
>
> You missed the point. The issue is not the exact numbers, which are
> highly questionable to begin with, but the general concept of literal
> acceptance. This is the problem with your comments on all the issues I
> list in this section. It is not that I am not aware of alternative
> explanations, possible reconciliations with modern understanding, or
> simple editorial mistakes. I am listing these in reference to what is
> blindly and literally accepted by the majority of ISKCON devotees.

This 'blind literal' acceptance is the way of parampara. If acaryas consider more versions or interpretations possible, they state so.

> Measurements of any kind are the bane of Indian scriptures. Many years
> ago I tried to analyze the Kuruksetra casualty numbers as given in
> various Mahabharata editions based on their descriptions of the
> aksauhinis and the make-up of the armies. The numerous contradictions
> and inconsistencies would not allow for a definitive number, and any
> estimates fell outside of what could reasonably be accepted as
> reality. None of the numbers ever came close to any number referenced
> in ISKCON literature.

The existence of various editions precludes this effort. One can do at most a comparison study.

'reasonably be accepted as reality'? Given our limited abilities and experience...? If I'd be 'reasonable' in my younger years, I'd be nowadays a most probably a scientist since that was the direction of my studies which didn't allow 'unreasonable' (i.e. alternative) views.

> >> The existence of a vastly superior global civilization, complete with
> >> airplanes and nuclear weapons, before 3,000 B.C.E. (going back millions
> >> of years cyclically) with people of increasing size and life span, the
> >> emperors of which ruled the entire Earth.12
> >
> > Some references to Sumerian and Tibetan records (with author's effort to
> > explain their length by reduction to months or days...):
> > http://www.etf.../99spurek_metuzalem.html
>
> Again, the issues listed in my manifesto refer to literalist
> acceptance of phantasmagorical things as they stand; not the scrutiny
> and/or alternative explanations of those things. Milan Spurek’s
> treatise of how durations may be variably represented in Tibetan and
> Sumerian antiquity does not affect this. Not in the least because
> exaggerated durations are but a fragment of the fantastic “vedic”
> histories. The utter absence of any references to the fabled “vedic”
> empire and its emperors by contemporary civilizations is endlessly
> more condemning than any inconsistencies in life spans or reigns.

re 'phantasmagorical things' see above

That ref shows that cyclical time and long lifespans aren't limited to Vedic tradition.

Which contemporary civilizations? Zoroastrian? Egyptian? Hurrian? All have significant Vedic characteristics. My observation - the older civilization the more Vedic it looks.

> >> The true existence of cannibalistic demons, ghosts, witches, magic
> >> powers, curses, talking animals, shape shifters, flying mountains,
> >> eagles capable of interplanetary flight, and other fabled entities and
> >> abilities.15
> >
> > At least ghosts, witches, magic powers, curses, shape shifters are
> > reported from around the world even nowadays.
>
> Popular appeal means little in this regard. Reports of anecdotal
> evidence are notorious for their poor support of facts and the ability
> to stand up to scrutiny. Additionally, in ISKCON scriptures and
> doctrines these incredible entities and abilities are usually specific
> and well-defined, so much so that they lend themselves even less for
> speculative interpretations than those of common lore. Yet, beyond
> their scriptural sources and anecdotal reports no hard evidence exists
> that would make for a comprehensive and valid argument of their
> existence.

So how do you propose to study these phenomena scientifically?

> >> The Sun being closer to the Earth than the Moon and being the only
> >> source of light in the entire universe.18
> >
> > The Puranic cosmos is a whole issue of itself. Interpretation attempts:
> >
> > Danavir Goswami (dr. D. Holtzman) - Vedic Cosmos (dvd)
>
> The same literalist issue.
>
> I personally do not care for Danavir’s attempts, as they are biased
> and geared one-way: to fit facts into ISKCON’s and Bhaktivedanta
> Swami’s accepted cosmological dogma. His research focuses on the
> Bhagavata Purana and serves to support the creation of a gigantic
> model of the puranic cosmology for the Temple of the Vedic Planetarium
> in Mayapur -- the real goal of which, of course, is to show the world
> how the modern scientific understanding of the world is wrong and how
> the universe we live in is really a comparatively tiny, flat-Earth
> based setup with one sun and moon and really nothing much beyond
> Saturn other than solid gold for endless miles. Within it, the current
> pole star has been and always will be in the same spot and stars
> reflect the light of the sun. Everything else, like galaxies, pulsars,
> novae, planets, moons, etc., is all just garbage produced by our
> "imperfect senses" and space travels to the moon and other planets are
> all just hoaxes perpetrated by evil scientists to dupe the people, or
> otherwise cleverly manipulated by Krishna to fool the atheists.
>
> In reality all that this model will show is Danavir’s understanding of
> a snapshot of what Indians thought the universe looked like many
> centuries ago -- and not even accurately. A more accurate version
> requires much broader research, as various puranas and other sources
> give various accounts of the cosmological situation. To be objective,
> one would first have to gather as many manuscripts of the various
> sources as possible and create text-critical versions. The next
> requirement is a comparative study and analysis of the cosmology of
> those various versions. Discrepancies and contradictions need to be
> solved. Any further supplementary and associated scriptures need the
> same treatment. The over-all historical context of the writings needs
> to be considered and their sources weighted in a proper scientific
> context (was this written by scholars, students, scientists, fanatic
> religionists...?). When all that is said and done, a unified model
> could be extracted -- if even possible –- that represents the general
> thought of the specific time range. This is a project of epic
> proportion, so I am not surprised that ISKCON isn't taking this route
> but instead choses to focus on few resources with questionable
> interpretations. And even if such an epic project would be completed,
> it would still only show limited conclusions from the past. Certainly
> not a model of the universe coming straight from the mouth of God or
> anything that can come anywhere near the understanding of modern
> science.

I guess you're not aware of the extent of Danavir M.'s research. He published several traditional books like Suryasiddhanta or Bhugola chapters from SB with acarya commentaries as well. I translated their summaries into Czech.

Actually your guess is wrong. This type of initiative is well underway. It's called Pramana Group, lead by Ravindra Svarupa P., coordinated by Basu Ghosh P. and I took part in it for some time (checking Ramayana) but had to stop for the lack of time.

> > Sadaputa das (dr. R.L. Thompson) - Mysteries of the Vedic Universe...
>
> In that work Sadaputa makes it clear that the cosmology of the
> Bhagavata Purana is ambiguous and can at most explain limited
> contemporary knowledge of Himalayan geography and that of the solar
> system up to Saturn – with a substantial margin of error. Everything
> else is metaphysical and unproven.

He gives several possible interpretations. That's in line with the notion that Vedas describe in every stanza several levels - earthly, above earthly and heavenly - accepted even by modern Indologists. This was mentioned in a letter by one Indology student to me.

> In essence the ancient Indian understanding of the world differs
> little from that of most concurrent civilizations, in which you’ll
> also find the general theme of heaven above, flat Earth in the middle,
> hell below, and some central structure that connects them. What does
> differ is that in other parts of the world the ancient view was slowly
> replaced as new discoveries expanded our understanding of the
> universe, while in India there were only poor attempts to amend the
> existing puranic model, which had by then already achieved the status
> of unalterable sacred scripture.

Puranas are ranked as Veda in samhitas themselves.

Siddhantas are not a 'new discovery', they're very old yet largely comparable to modern views of cosmos.

> >> The existence of 28 planets that make up a hell in which sinners are
> tortured
> >> beyond belief for millions of years for even trivial transgressions.19
> >
> > Hells are quite well known from NDEs.
>
> They are also quite well known to have been used as methods of
> control.

And that makes them unreal...?

> Neither makes a case for their true existence, and sporadic
> and widely differing anecdotal evidence that is exclusive to the
> subjective experiences of very few individuals certainly does not make
> a case for the comprehensive hellish realm described in the Bhagavata
> Purana and accepted literally by the vast majority of ISKCON devotees.
>
> It is also not surprising that the people who have experiences of hell
> always experience it in the context of their own religious/cultural
> believe of what such hell should look like.

Not at all. Read professional medical texts on terminal restlessness and hospital staff experiences. Some links are in our article on death.

> The eclipse issue is equally taken out of the list’s context.

?

> >> 22. Bhaktivedanta Swami's overemphasis on unquestioned obedience to the
> >> guru and his absolute position as a divine intermediary is
> >> unprecedented.
> >
> > BG 4.34, etc.
>
> This verse is hardly an endorsement of the above assertion. Rather, it
> is taken out of its rightful context and mistranslated to serve that
> purpose specifically. Up to this verse the conversation entailed
> various types of sacrifice. The verse itself merely states:
>
> “This (pertaining to the sacrifices mentioned) can be learned through
> a submissive attitude (pra - in front of, ni – down, pata – falling),
> thorough inquiry, and service. Those who know this will teach you
> because they have seen the truth.”
>
> There is no singular and no indication of an absolute status or
> unquestioned obedience in relation to spirituality. It simply explains
> that if you want to know about all the different sacrifices, you are
> advised to submissively approach those who know about it and question
> and serve them – following a historical context in which knowledge of
> sacrifices was not easy to come by and not meant for just anyone.
>
> If you actually study Gaudiya history and vaishnava history in
> general, you’ll find that Bhaktivedanta Swami’s version of guru-hood
> is just that, his version.

If one doesn't want to follow what he learns from these persons (siksa gurus) due to it's presumed relative worth, then why to approach them in the first place?

Etc. means that there's more, much more on the guru tattva than possible to enumerate. Guru gita of Skanda Purana is one such section off the top of my head. Complete with absolute/divine status and unquestioned obedience after diksa. I know that modernists don't like it but that's beside the point.

His version of guruhood can be seen in other Vaisnava and non Vaisnava groups in India. If not, there'd be an outcry from his enemies long time ago. He was criticized for various things but not for false guruhood.

> > What about the procedure of choosing guru in Haribhaktivilasa?
>
> This late scripture has been cherry-picked to death in ISKCON, as have
> many. ISKCON does not follow it as a whole, just as it doesn’t follow
> the Manu-Samhita or so many other scriptures that Bhaktivedanta Swami
> showered with great importance (for example
> http://kuruvinda.com/manurefs.html).

It's a compilation of all sorts of viddhis, mostly specific to time, place and circumstances. So it's definitely not possible to follow everything.
Manu samhita as a whole isn't meant for Kali yuga, Parasara smriti is (Ps. 1.24). Yet they have many common concepts.

> >> What I do write off is the notion that a possible sentient origin of
> >> existence is literally and at all times in its original form a
> >> dhoti-wearing cattle herder boy
> >
> > Whom many ISKCON devotees saw by their own eyes and even some outsiders
> > like psychics recognize His power. E.g. power of His names, holy texts,
> > holy water, prasadam, symbols like tilaka prove efficiency against
> > negative people and other entities (including exorcism), etc.
>
> I am not disputing that the experiences of people claiming the above
> are not real to them, but subjective anecdotal evidence is hardly
> proof of a concept applicable to all.

When you ask all kinds of theists about their experiences, the big picture emerges. They will describe other forms of Visnu, Siva or Devi.
Recently I did some inquiry into Feri (very interesting) and had exchanges with one Wiccan who was interested in Krsna.

> There are many more instances in
> which these wonderful aspects failed in their expected effects. For
> each devotee with a mystic or rapturous experience there are many
> dozens left with earnest prayers unanswered;

Where's this stats found?

If the prayer will be answered depends on various things, the main one being Krsna's sweet will/mercy.

> or dying from horrific
> accidents, diseases or crimes despite their kavacas, holy water, and
> tilak; or exploited, raped and abused by devotee peers and authorities
> despite sincere service and surrender; and the list goes on.

At the same time there're many cases of unusual, even miraculous escapes, cures etc. In a lila both of these things happen to devotees.
Thinking that "I've become invulnerable by these protections" is a mechanical, karmakandiya-like view ("Krsna must protect me").

> Close to 99.999% of self-professed psychics are either charlatans or
> sincerely delusional. Decades of objective testing and a million
> dollar reward challenge have not yielded one genuine case. What is the
> value of their input?

They're rather unrelated to this topic.

Do you mean the Randi prize? That man is a manipulative crook. I've read forum reactions that he vets out certain people from undergoing testing to save the money. From his pov it makes sense but it's still cheating.
I remember a video where he seemingly seriously tried to convince some students that horoscopes are so vague that any random horoscope fits any random person. That was it for me.

> >> The narrow confines in which the acceptance of Chaitanya as God is to
> >> take place is no exception and based purely on the assertions of gurus
> >> in the Gaudiya line.
> >
> > Not really, sastra and sadhus join them (e.g. Vallabha).
> >
> > http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/caitanya.htm
>
> The quotes from the website are from scriptures written by gurus in
> the various Gaudiya lines and sadhus following both (some of which,
> like the Chaitanya Upanisad, are fabrications) or mistranslated verses
> from other scriptures to force a conclusion. It is not hard nowadays
> to find these references analyzed online.

I'm interested in specifying editions where these quotes are/aren't found.
If you have some links, send them in please.

> >> the unattainable nature of its lofty goals ... Even after decades of
> >> sincere practice without the promised results they will trudge on in
> >> depression (or blissful self delusion)
> >
> > Too subjective.
>
> This refers to a minority and is based on my personal discussions with
> dozens of long-time devotees from all over the world (including quite
> a number of Bhaktivedanta Swami’s disciples) over more than a decade.
> Subjective to that, maybe, but I wouldn’t generalize it as “too
> subjective.”

Practice (sadhana bhakti) may be sincere but "lofty goals" (I suppose raganuga bhakti is meant) don't depend on it in a mechanical way. I vaguely remember a quote that raganuga is not a result of sadhana. Similarly, Narada Muni says in his Bhakti sutras that bhakti isn't a result of any material condition.

Vaisnavas recognize Krsna kripa, Krsna-parsada kripa, guru kripa and Vaisnava kripa as explanations why sometimes even someone with next to none sadhana account achieves genuine raganuga bhakti.

> >> naivety-born insistence that scripture be taken literally
> >
> > saksad upadesas tu srutih - "The instructions of the sruti-sastra should
> > be accepted literally, without fanciful or allegorical (gauna or
> > laksana-vrtti) interpretations." (Jiva Gosvami, Krsna sandarbha
> > 29.26-27)
>
> Your reference to srutic instructions from someone who lived centuries
> ago (in an era where the common man wasn’t literate and certainly
> lacked ready access to scripture) doesn’t make the current-day context
> of Bhaktivedanta Swami’s literal acceptance of all scriptural text any
> less naive.

Now, for a change, 'centuries ago' is a problem.

You may call it naive but it's consistent with guru, sadhu and sastra.

> He also said that the Bible should be taken literally. Now
> what?

He simply applied the same criteria to other scriptures.

“Both read the Bible day and night,
But thou read'st black where I read white.”
(William Blake: The Everlasting Gospel, 1818, line 13-14)

> >> gurukula experiment
> >
> > It was an experiment to transplant Vedic gurukula to the Western
> > environment largely antithetical to it. Simple copying couldn't work due
> > to several factors. Possibly the most important one was that of the
> > staff:
> >
> > Vedic gurukula teacher: mature grihastha (Sans. kula = family)
> > ISKCON gurukula teacher in 70s: immature (young) brahmacari
> >
> > Separation of children and parents, although seemingly standard in Vedic
> > culture, isn't part of the modern Western culture, aside attempts of
> > totalitarian regimes to monopolize education (indoctrination).
>
> I’m not sure what your point is. Despite the idealized concept of the
> “vedic” gurukula, Bhaktivedanta Swami’s interpretation of it and his
> attempts to implement that interpretation in the West resulted in
> unmentionable horrors.

Mainly as the result an unqualified staff, as I wrote above.

> Nowhere in the reality of the known history of India will you find any
> large scale concept of gurukulas to which children age 5 and younger
> are sent (like Bhaktivedanta Swami envisioned), other than in the
> fantasy stories of the idealized “vedic” culture that never existed.

There's traditional gurukulas in India nowadays run by various organizations or private although not on a large scale which is to be expected.
I haven't seen any suggestion for children under 5 to be sent to gurukula.

> Separation of children and parents isn’t only frowned upon in the
> modern Western culture, but also in India. Throughout history India
> has always shown an intensely close-knit family structure.

Yet the gurukula was there too - for dvija boys. Iow, not all children were sent to gurukula. In today's situation it'd be a minority of those who qualify for such gurukula.

> Bhaktivedanta Swami largely based his vision on the unhistorical fable
> of Prahlada, not on actual history (even that of the Guadiya line) or
> personal experience. Neither he nor his own children were ever ripped
> away from their parents that young to be sent off to a gurukula. Quite
> the contrary (http://kuruvinda.com/ref1.html).

There's very little about gurukula in those many quotes. Which ones were available back in his days, their education status, etc. should be ascertained.

> >> 1) he knew his minions well enough to prevent what happened
> >
> > Depends on Krsna if He warns the guru about certain people. Guru isn't
> > automatically a prophet.
>
> To blame God for the mistakes of a guru who claimed direct access to
> Him sounds like a cop-out to me. It’s a child-argument of the good old
> justification that the ways of God are indiscernible – or in other
> words, yes, all these devotees dying in quite ordinary ways we cannot
> explain, so it must be something God did for reasons we cannot
> understand. Here, too: very poor decisions led to a predictably dismal
> outcome, but because it should have been all fantastic on the strength
> of the spiritual status of the decision maker, the dismal outcome must
> have been something God did for reasons we cannot understand. Yeah,
> right...

The premise of guru having 'direct access (to Krsna)' and thus being 'omniscient' isn't true.
This is not blaming Krsna but those people. Krsna isn't forcing us to do anything, only warns and inspires from the heart.
For the rest see above.

> >> aberrations ranging from polygamy to counter productive, wholesale
> >> science-bashing.35
> >
> > SP instructed his disciples to follow local laws. That rules out
> > polygamy.
>
> That should rule out a lot of things that devotees engaged in with his
> knowledge when Bhaktivedanta Swami was still around.

Like?

> The truth is that Bhaktivedanta Swami supported and promoted polygamy
> in writing and in the practice of his disciples up until 1975, after
> which it became clear that sex and control were the predominant
> drives. Only then did he abandon the idea for ISKCON.

Any references to polygamous marriages in ISKCON and SP's direct orders?
He specifically prohibits it in several letters from February 1973 to Karandhara, Satsvarupa and Rupanuga.

> Of course, as
> usual, by then a lot of damage had already been done. If you speak to
> those of his disciples who have experienced it, like I have, you will
> get a clear picture of the exploitation perpetrated under yet another
> one of Bhaktivedanta Swami’s experiments gone awry.

Please give me contacts to some of those polygamist disciples.

> I guess here, too, it must have been something God did for reasons we
> cannot understand.

At least I don't try to understand _everything_ knowing my limited capacity.

> > He didn't do wholesale science-bashing. Otherwise he couldn't promote
> > yukta vairagya.
>
> Really? Then how would you call this?
>
> http://kuruvinda.com/ref3a.html
>
> In case you didn’t know, Bhaktivedanta Swami said and did a lot of
> contradictory things, but he was always very clear in his war on
> science – including the hypocritical usage of that very same science
> if it in any way supported his own ideas.

My understanding: Prabhupada's stance against modern science is basically a criticism of (1) atheists indulging in (2) apara vidya, (3) monopolizing it as the only _real_ knowledge and by this (4) mind control (5) preventing people to progress spiritually.
Yet he appreciated scientists who showed some humility and weren't outspoken atheists like Newton, Einstein, Bigelow etc. I didn't find these in your quote compilation, btw.

'hypocritical usage of that very same science if it in any way supported his own ideas' is called yukta vairagya. Not everyone can appreciate it.

> >> 35: In 1968 Bhaktivedanta Swami made a notorious public claim that the
> >> Apollo project would fail.
> >
> > From my pov it failed since after several missions the project was
> > abandoned. No permanent station, no inhabitation - all these remained in
> > words only. I consider it simply a relic of Cold War.
>
> You did not determine the purpose of the project, so how can you
> determine that it failed on achievements that it never aimed for?
> Words only? What words? The purpose of the Apollo project was
> determined by John F. Kennedy: “I believe that this nation should
> commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of
> landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth.”
>
> That goal was reached, despite Bhaktivedanta Swami’s claim to the
> contrary. The Apollo missions did not aim for permanent stations or
> inhabitation, but for going to the moon in the first place. Permanency
> only became an additional, weak, argument used by Bhaktivedanta Swami
> later on.

That goal was allegedly reached during the first mission, no? So why the others? So far Moon colonization is still only in plans, i.e. words, like those of K. Tsiolkovsky, A.C. Clarke or Lunex Project, to name a few:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonization_of_the_Moon

If you don't mind to give your taxes to pay this, ok. But I guess most people would like to decide for themselves. I don't expect this to happen though. US government like most others is self-serving and needs to hide many things from its people. FOIA is only a weak correction to this situation.

> >> Equally undeniable is the surprising extent of misogyny, bigotry,
> >> religious and cultural elitism, homophobia, and promotion of social
> >> regression
> >
> > All these require an individual analysis. The main problem is the
> > paradigm collision.
> >
> > The 'Who is Crazy' essay is helpful in this regard.
>
> While I mention earlier in the manifesto that such analysis is indeed
> required to understand the full reason and impact, too many of the
> statements stand on their own and are crystal clear without the need
> for analysis. A paradigm collision is irrelevant in this regard.

No, it's relevant since different paradigms define these phenomena differently.
When you present a collection of SP's quotes against homosex under the title 'Homophobia' it's clear which paradigm you subscribe to.

> >> rather than discredit advancement and discovery as demoniac
> >> ugra-karma.39
> >
> >> Based on the gist of this verse and other references ugra-karma quickly
> >> became ISKCON jargon for anything done in the secular world that
> >> doesn't vibe with the ideology of "simple living, high thinking."
> >
> > This I consider a misinterpretation. Specific quotes and contexts needed
> > where ugra karma is used for something else than 'horrible activity',
> > its literal meaning. SP used it for animal slaughter, nuclear weapons
> > (BG 16.9 p.), drugs, nightclubs (SB 7.14.10 p.), neglect of agriculture
> > and cow protection (SB 10.5.8 p.), dynamite (LCFL 2), oil drilling (room
> > conversation, New Vrindavan, June 24, 1976), etc.
>
> How Bhaktivedanta Swami used it is irrelevant. My context is how I
> have heard it being used by the average devotee throughout my ISKCON
> career.

No, it's supremely relevant since misunderstandings and misinterpretation by average devotees is what we both have problems with.

> >> I stood by in good faith as it was stripped of individuality, wrapped
> >> up in dogma, rubberstamped with doctrines, etc.
> >
> > Sounds like self-pity. But unless one allows to become a puppet no one
> > can turn him into one.
>
> I don’t do self-pity. This is a personal evaluation of my own experiences.
>
> An yes, I did allow myself to become a puppet, just like you did, but
> I have recognized the situation and decided to cut the strings. Thus,
> I no longer have a need to kowtow to aberrations of the past and
> defend and justify the undefendible and unjustifiable.

I don't think so. My history in ISKCON is rather specific due to my service which requires to study much more than just SP's books. I never preached beyond my level not did I manipulate anyone. My realizations lead me to an openness to other theistic traditions which I concluded to be parallel to the Vedic one.

> >> a version fabricated by ancient oriental cattle herders, modified
> >> throughout the ages for cultural and political reasons, and served up
> >> in modern times by agenda-driven literalist messiahs.
> >
> > Pretty much the modern academic view of Vedic culture. Judge by the
> > fruits. Cui bono?
>
> I have judged by the fruits and, despite their sweetness, found the
> tree that yields them to be as toxic as that of the venerable Taxus.

My experience is different but even if yours is right, it wouldn't make the modernist paradigm (collapsing after short 200 +- years of self-destruction) a viable alternative. Rather it seems to me that times are coming fast when we'll be forced to realize the value of Vedic lifestyle in our lives.
SP envisioned it long time ago and urged for self-sufficiency but ISKCON unfortunately failed to develop it.

> Ridentem dicere verum quid vetat?
>
> With all this said, please don't worry about it too much. Life goes
> on. Mine was not an over-night decision. It has taken years of
> contemplation and study to come to my conclusions, and I will not
> change back. On the other hand, it also doesn't mean that I am
> agressively antagonistic towards the movement or anyone in it. I
> appreciate all the friends I have made along the way and respect their
> faith and outlook on life. I've been there, remember? ;-)

Therefore I wonder about this U-turn of yours. But it gives me an opportunity to reflect on it which is always helpful.

> At this point in my life, however, I can adhere neither to the
> philosophy nor the life style with personal peace of mind. I can
> appreciatively enjoy and participate in its cultural aspects, song,
> dance, poetry, etc. as such, but anything in the realm of absolutism,
> literalism, or from a religious doctrinal point of view is no longer
> of any importance to me.

This makes little sense to me. Vaisnava culture is a sacred, theistic culture. How can anyone opposing it on many crucial points participate in it? Can you clarify?

> My spiritual life didn't begin with ISKCON
> and won't end with it. With leaving ISKCON everything so far has come
> full circle. I hesitate to discuss the hows and whys with devotees
> because I am not one wont to adversely affect their devotional lives.
> It is not my place and I lack the interest.

By making your manifest public do you think it doesn't 'adversely affect their devotional lives', just by the use of words like 'blind', 'phantasmagorical', 'fantastic', 'fabled', 'hypocritical' etc.? It seems you don't realize the power of word which is surprising to me.

> I'm not a "demon" or on a quest of vengeance or anything like that. As
> a matter of fact, I don't really want to spend any more time on ISKCON
> than I already have. That is why I published a manifesto of my
> thoughts and conclusions, so that anyone who wants to know can go
> there. That is more or less it. I'll sail off into slowly fading
> memories as thousands have done before me, while those who need to
> will justify my departure as the result of aparadha, lack of sadhana,
> or some such reason. I don't blame them for that. People will think
> what they want. It's human nature. At the same time I also don't like
> to see my personal thoughts on personal experiences disected without
> good reason to do so and based on a decent understanding of those
> thoughts. In this case I did not get that impression and therefore
> felt compelled to contact you. Thanks for hearing me out.
>
> Wishing you the best,

Same from me. However, our ideas of 'best' are different.

> Your friend,

I may respect your views but if they denigrate Veda, Krsna, guru parampara and Vaisnavas as manmade, incompetent, evil-minded etc., I don't see what should the friendship be based on. I don't like empty terms. Maybe you can help with suggestions.

Hari Hari
Jan