You can submit your article, report, announcement, ad etc. by mailing to

Comments Posted By Krishnadas

Displaying 1 To 11 Of 11 Comments


I love this article! I keep reading it over and over again. Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja makes so many important points.

Maharaja answers a question that may be troubling some of us: “Why is it that I have been here for so many years but it doesn’t seem that I’ve made any advancement?” Of course we may be collecting valuable bhakti-unmukhi sukriti, but in this article Maharaja makes it clear why we are not yet directly getting bhakti. Thanks for posting it.

» Posted By Krishnadas On Sep 25, 2006 @ 10:27 am

Yogesvara prabhu’s recent interview on the Dr Rus Show

All glories to your nice preaching Yogesvara Prabhu. I greatly appreciated your above remembrance regarding Srila Prabhupada’s instruction, “The highest principle is to save yourself.”

Is this statement in the folio with Srila Prabhupada’s letters? I searched for some time but couldn’t find it. If you or someone else could inform me I would be greatful.

Thanks again.

» Posted By Krishnadas On Sep 21, 2006 @ 2:29 am

Sri Sri Krishna Balarama Showers a Huge Cloudbank of Mercy Upon Queens, NY

My pranams. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

Dear Mithuna Prabhu, thanks. “Halidhari”, was a typo on my part.

Dear Ravindara Svarup Prabhu, thank you for taking the time to clarify. Your explanation makes everything clear.

» Posted By Krishnadas On Sep 23, 2006 @ 8:33 am

Wow, it sounds like it was a wonderful program!

Mithuna Prabhu, a small question; I don’t mean at all to be challenging, but isn’t the name “Halidhari” feminine gender in Sanskrit? Shouldn’t it be “Sri Sri Hari Haladhara”?

All glories to your wonderful seva!

» Posted By Krishnadas On Sep 21, 2006 @ 2:34 am


A few thoughts on the dynamics of this “touch subject”:

Suresh Prabhu has opened his soft heart and showed us something of the beautiful concern and affection contained therein. I hope that the kind readers of this discussion will thoughtfully consider what he is saying and not just blindly throw opinions back at him. Srila Prabhupada captured his followers with a net of deep affection and mercy. It’s important for us, as his followers to keep such compassion in the center and not allow this movement to degrade into mechanical shows of religiosity.

Mark has nicely cited a few statements from Srila Prabhupada illustrating the point of how Mahaprabhu’s movement is for everyone, sudras, and brahmanas alike. He has a good point: Rather then banning hugging, and setting up hidden cameras to capture offenders, we would be better off emphasizing the chanting of Hare Krishna.

However, we should also listen to the voices of other devotees in this discussion: Aside from varnasram, there is another separate but also important consideration: What was the standard of behavior that Srila Prabhupada wanted for his disciples and followers living in the temples? For his institution of temples, book distribution, deity worship, and preaching; Srila Prabhupada wanted to a society of first-class brahmanas.

As Suresh and Mark have pointed out, we should not hate devotees who may exhibit sudra like tendencies. At the same time surely Srila Prabhupada did not want our public behavior to be sudra like. A number of devotees in this discussion have pointed out that even married (what to speak of unmarried) men and women in high-class Indian society will not as much as hold hands in public. They have described how in Indian and Vaishnava society, for unmarried men and women to hug is considered very low-class and scandalous. This discussion will go nowhere if this later, valid concern, is also not given due consideration.

To support the “conservative side”: Scratching our bottoms, picking our nose, or eating with the left hand is not good public behavior in our temples or in India. It would be considered offensive by many people and would bring a bad name to Srila Prabhupada. Yet free hugging between men and women is considered much more low class in Indian society than eating with your left hand etc.

Srila Prabhupada was very compassionate and wanted to accommodate everyone, but at the same time he wanted his representatives to maintain strict standards of behavior. I suggest that he would be most pleased if we try to balance both of these considerations not neglecting one or the other. For the sake of our society I pray that we can carefully and respectfully consider each others opinions. There are valid points on both sides.

Thank you. Hare Krishna.

» Posted By Krishnadas On Sep 25, 2006 @ 1:19 pm

Dear Madhava Gosh Prabhu,

Please forgive me if I’m a little slow, I’m trying to understand. After looking again more carefully at your first comment, it seems that when you spoke of misogynism, you were referring to some misunderstandings of certain individuals in our society and were not actually addressing the verse or purport Maharaja quoted. If that is correct, then I agree with you: misogynists have a misunderstanding. Still two questions come to my mind: 1) What does the misunderstanding of these misogynists have to do with the principle of men and women hugging? Ie: Does their misunderstanding somehow make such hugging right or wrong? 2) Since Maharaja has simply quoted a Bhagavatam verse and purport of Srila Prabhupada, what exactly is it that you find, “your quaint thinking” in his post?

My above questions are meant to explain what it was that I found confusing. No need to address them unless my above implied understanding about what you meant is incorrect.

My apologies to you and Suresh Prabhu if I made you unhappy in any way. For many reasons, I’m also in the animal category. Fortunately, Krishna consciousness has a place for everyone, even wild beasts like myself. Lord Ramacandra engaged monkeys and bears, and Caitanya Mahaprabhu engaged Sivananda Sen’s dog as well as the creatures in the Jarikhanda Forest. I saw your blog, Madhava Gosh Prabhu and appreciate your frank natural spirit. If we met, I’m sure we would get along really well. (I hope your health is better.) I also appreciate Suresh Prabhu’s kind heartedness.

From all of the above examples cited, it seems clear that hugging between men and women is considered low class in Vedic culture and was not appreciated by Srila Prabhupada. Nor am I personally comfortable with hugging women. In spite of that, I hope that our movement is broad enough that it can allow a corner somewhere were even huggers can be happy.

» Posted By Krishnadas On Sep 13, 2006 @ 5:50 pm

Dear Madhava Ghosh Prabhu,

Could you please clarify exactly what was “misogynistic” in Trivikram Maharaja’s text?

Thank you.

» Posted By Krishnadas On Sep 13, 2006 @ 4:50 pm

Hare Krishna!

I’m an observer to this discussion, and I would like to respect everyone here. However, I’m pained and dismayed at the attitude here of Madhava Gosh and Suresh Prabhus. Please read Trivikram Maharaja’s text again. He is not judging anyone as an “animal”, nor is it “his thinking”. He is quoting Srimad Bhagavatam and Srila Prabhupada. Is reading and quoting the Bhagavatam, misogynist mentality? What is our society coming to if we are not willing to accept Srimad Bhagavatam as evidence?

As a bystander reader it doesn’t seem to me that you are criticizing Trivikram Maharaja, it seems you are criticizing Srila Prabhupada and the Srimad Bhagavatam. How sad! You are both learned and gentle devotees as well as respected disciples of Srila Prabhupada, would you dare to go before Srila Prabhupada and make such criticisms of his purport and the words of the Bhagavatam.

Please follow the principles of noble discussion and either explain to us how this verse and purport does not apply to your position or beg apology from Maharaja and accept his position. But please don’t do violence to us by slandering the Bhagavatam and Srila Prabhupada. We want to respect you

Your hurt and disappointed servant,


» Posted By Krishnadas On Sep 12, 2006 @ 3:36 pm

Time to be Dharmic

Dear Suresh,

Hare Krishna. I also went to Dhanudhara Swami’s site. What seems to be the case files that Citradas Prabhu is referring to, are there under the heading: “Dhanurdhara Swami’s Response to the ISKCON Child Protection Office’s Case”.

Here is the exact link:

If this is not what Citradas Prabhu is referring to, then I hope that he or someone else will correct this comment.

Personally I found the history presented in the above link to be very interesting. It should be compulsory reading for anyone who wants to comment on this topic.

» Posted By Krishnadas On Jul 11, 2006 @ 1:41 am

Was the head of our sampradaya a child abuser?

Dear Namaprabhu,

Hare Krishna. I think that Mother Vishakha’s point is still very valid. Certainly, your point is well taken that we cannot understand Lord Brahma’s activities. However, this also supports a point that seems implicit in her presentation, ie: that we cannot percieve with our material senses when someone is purified of their offense or not. One lesson that we can learn from this pastime of Lord Brahma is that even if someone performs what seems to be the most abominable act, if they are performing genuine devotional service then the Lord will protect and purify them.

» Posted By Krishnadas On Jul 2, 2006 @ 12:58 am

Regarding the zero tolerance policy

Hare Krishna Suresh Prabhu,

Perhaps you have misunderstood Mother Vishakha Priya’s point. Imitation of great souls is offensive, but there is certainly no harm in learning from their example as she is suggesting. No where does she say that we should imitate Lord Brahma. Rather there is a great lesson we can learn from Lord Brahma’s example that by taking shelter of Krishna and His holy name one can become purified of even such a heinous sin as child abuse or pursuing sex with one’s own daughter.

I see Mother Vishakha’s use of this example to be congruous with the way Srila Prabhupada often cited it. Regarding this pastime with Lord Brahma, Srila Prabhupada several times instructed that this pastime contains instructions for us:

“This is a lesson for the living entities, showing how sinful an act it is to indulge in unrestricted sex life. Even to think of abominable sex life is sinful, and to compensate for such acts, one has to give up his body. In other words, one’s duration of life, blessings, opulence, etc., are decreased by sinful acts, and the most dangerous type of sinful act is unrestricted sex.” — Purport to Bhag. 3.12.33

“So we should not be disturbed when we see Lord Brahma and Lord Siva is captivated in that way. We should take this instruction, that is Lord Brahma, Lord Siva becomes victim of maya sometimes, what to speak of us? Therefore we shall be very, very careful. There is chance of falldown even in the status of Brahma and Siva, what to speak of ordinary persons. Therefore we should be very strongly inclined to Krishna consciousness like Haridasa Thakura. Then we shall be able very easily to overcome the allurement of maya. That is to be understood. Not that “Brahma showed that,” what is called, “weakness. He is weak or he is less.” No. That is for our instruction.” — Lecture in Los Angeles, 19 December 1968.

“So far Lord Brahma and his attraction for his daughter; this illustration should be taken by conditioned souls, that even a person like Brahma is sometimes victimized, how much careful we should be. Not that even Brahma was enticed, so we shall become enticed more and more. This is an example set for us by great devotees.”
— Letter to Himavati 23 March 1969.

Suresh Prabhu, it’s good to see so many open minded thinkers such as yourself contributing to, I hope that you will also consider my humble comments above.

Ys, Krishnadas

» Posted By Krishnadas On Jul 2, 2006 @ 12:42 am

«« Back To Stats Page