The main aim of the blog is not to spread Anti-Iskcon campaign. but only to reveal true face of Iskcon. i don't have any problem to accept krishna as supreme personality of godhead.but i don't accept their claim that Shiva and other vedic deities are just subordinate to him. and their claim that Krishna is even superior to absolute brahman.

Friday, October 24, 2008

Who said siva is demi god ?

This video shows how ISKCON interprets vedic god Siva (also known as Rudra) in relation to their Krsna

If you find any problem to view above pls watch it from youtube
From the above Video it can be clearly said that
1) ISK'CON' believes that siva is a demi god
2) Siva is not supreme as Krishna
3) Siva worshippers can get only 'material welfare'. They can't get spiritual benefit.
moksha(liberation) cannot be given by siva.
4) Siva doesnot have all 64 abilities.He has 55 qualities. Only supreme godhead Krishna shall
have all 64 qualities.
5) Demons worship 'Siva'. He gets into angry mood quickly. He has 'tamo guna'.
6) Siva was born from Brahma's forehead.
7) ISKCON supports their claim by quoting from a scripture titled 'Brahma samhitha'
8) Shiva is top most worshipper but he is not top most worshipful.
9) Siva could not save 'Ravana' from the death.

my objections.

"To Rudra bring these songs, whose bow is firm and strong, the self-dependent God with swiftly-flying shafts,The Wise, the Conqueror whom none may overcome, armed with sharp-pointed weapons: may he hear our call." (Rigveda 7:46:1 )

what ?? Rudra is self dependent !!! None may overcome him !!!!! is n't this the quality of a supreme being ? This verse clarifies any doubts that arrise from Rigveda 7:40:5, which was plagiarized by Isk-"con"-ites.

"Rudra by day, Rudra at night we honour with these our songs, the Universe's Father.Him great and lofty, blissful, undecaying let us call specially as the Sage impels us. " (Rigveda 6:49:10)

gee..... here Rudra is called as father of universe !!! what is this ?? and further, the sages impelled them to call Rudra as the 'Father of the Universe'.

Let us see what Yajurveda (Taittariya Samhita 1.8.6.i; VS 3.60) says :

There is a hymn in it. It is popularly known as Mrithyumjaya maha Mantra :

tryambakaṃ yajāmahe sugandhiṃ puṣṭi-vardhanam
urvārukam iva bandhanān mṛtyor mukṣīya māmṛtāt

(The same mantra can be seen in Rigveda 7:59:12)

let us see its meaning
We worship and adore you, O three-eyed one, You are sweet gladness, the fragrance of life, who nourishes us, restores our health, and causes us to thrive. As, in due time, the stem of the cucumber weakens, and the gourd if freed from the vine, so free us from attachment and death, and do not withhold immortality.

Oooooo......, vedik rishis are asking shiva ,the three eyed one , to free from attachment !!! They are asking for Moksha (liberation /salvation ) !!! How can a demi god called shiva can give moksha ? How can he free from 'attachment' ? is n't he responsible for only material welfare ? 'moksha' & ' staying away without attachment ' definitely falls under spiritual welfare . Poor vedik rishis!! They are unaware of it. They must have asked ISK'con' god brothers like Tamal krishna and Haridham to educate them.

There is Shri Rudram in Taittariya samhita of Yajurveda.(4.5 ). It is otherwise called shatharudriyam. let us see what it says about Rudra.

Namasteastu bhavagan vishvesvaraya mahadevaya
triyambakaya triupurantakaya trikalagni kalaya kalaagni Rudraya nilakanthaya mrutyunjayaya sarveshvaraya sadashivaya
Sriman mahadevaya Namah ( First Anuvaka)


"Let my salutations be to that great God who is the Lord of the universes; the great God who has three eyes and who destroys Tripura, the three Asura cities. To that God who is the Dandhya time when the three sacred fires are lit; who is Rudra the fire that consumes the universe; whose throat is blue; who has conquered death; the Lord of all; the ever auspicious one; salutations to that glorious and great God."

oh ... !!! Here Vedic Rishis are calling Rudra as 'Bhagawan'. Not only bhagawan but also "vishveswaraya' . The sound 'Ishwara ' is not an ordinary word that can be used to demi gods or devotees of gods . why didVedic rishis call 'Rudra' as ' iswara' ? Even puranas and ithihasa use the same word to address Lord Shiva. The same tradition is continuing till now. We call 'Parvati' and 'Parameshwara' . Kashi Vishveswara,Somanatheswara, omkareswara, Triambakeshwara....etc . O poor vedic rishis !! They must have taken ISKCON Prabhupada's Advice.

let us see another verse from it

Namo Bhavaya Cha Rudraya Cha Namah Sharvaya Cha Pashupataye Cha
Namo Nilagrivaya Cha Shitikanthaya Cha
Namah Kapardine Cha Vyuptakeshaya Cha
Namah Sahasrakshaya Cha Shatadhanvane Cha
Namo Girishaya Cha Shipivishhtaya Cha (
Fifth Anuvaka)


Salutations to Him who is the source of all things and to Him who is the destroyer of all ills. Salutations to the destroyer and to the protector of all beings in bondage. Salutations to Him whose throat is black and whose throat is also white. Salutations to Him of the matted locks, and to Him who is clean-shaven. Salutations to Him who has a Thousand eyes and a hundred bows. Salutations to Him who dwells on the mount and who is in the form of Shipivista (Vishnu).

Oh NO....!! Vedik Rishis have gone even further . They are calling Rudra as 'Bhavaya' ie., 'source' . How can he be called source of everything ? Only creator could be the source of everything . They called him 'pasupati' .All living beings are called 'pashu', because it is a metaphor and 'Pati' means one who 'rules' or 'protects'. oh !! here he is called protector and Destroyer as well. All three activities ie., Creation, protection and Destruction by Rudra himself ??? How could he do all the three things ? They also called Rudra as 'shipivista'(vishnu) !! it is epithet of 'Vishnu' in the Yajurveda . Vedik Rishis have gone Crazy !!! O ...ISKCON God brothers where are you ?
{ Note: the concept of 'Gopal ' has been drawn as inspiration from Vedic 'Pasupati' . Both are metaphors }

Let us see what upanishads say about RUDRA

SVETASVATARA UPAN ISHAD of Yajurveda ( Oldest and one among the 11 primary upanishads )

"Prakriti is perishable. Hara, the Lord, is immortal and imperishable. The non—dual Supreme Self rules both prakriti and the individual soul. Through constant meditation on Him, by union with Him, by the knowledge of identity with Him, one attains, in the end, cessation of the illusion of phenomena. "( 1:10 svetasvathara upanishad )

"Rudra is truly one; for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second, He alone rules all the worlds by His powers. He dwells as the inner Self of every living being. After having created all the worlds, He, their Protector, takes them back into Himself at the end of time." ( 3:02 svetasvatara upsanishad )

"He, the omniscient Rudra, the creator of the gods and the bestower of their powers, the support of the universe, He who, in the beginning, gave birth to Hiranyagarbha—may He endow us with clear intellect!" (3:04 svetasvatara upanishad )

"The Supreme Lord is higher than Virat, beyond Hiranyagarbha. He is vast and is hidden in the bodies of all living beings. By knowing Him who alone pervades the universe, men become immortal "( 3:07 svetasvathara upanishad )

"Seeking Liberation, I take refuge in the Lord, the revealer of Self—Knowledge, who in the beginning created Brahma and delivered the Vedas to Him". (6:18 svetasvatara upanishad )

oh !! what is this ? why Vedik rishis calling Rudra as supreme being ? O srila Prabhupada.. why don't you send your god brothers to vedik rishis?
(Note: Svetasvatara upanishad is not Shaiva upanishad. Shaiva agamas were not even there at the time. Moreover, if this Upanishad is indeed a Shaiva Upanishad, other sects of Hinduism such as Vaishnavas wouldn't have quoted its verses/mantras as authority in their respective treatises.There are many words which voice submission to God or Brahman (words such as Sharanam, Prapadye, etc.). This concept of devotion later found profound expression in the Bhakti Sutras and other treatises on Bhakti.)


But most people think that ISKCON 's sources are Vedas. But they are not at all from vedas . They use cult generated documents. let us see what their sources are .

1) Brahma Samhita : Generally a common man might think that it is something HINDU (vedik) because the name Brahma samhita sounds like that. People may surprise if they know the facts . We find Brahma samhita only in 16 th century AD . Before that we won't find it. ISCKON claims that it was found to Chaitanya prabhu in kerala. and it was a secret document and part of vedas. But the language used is modern sanskrit and not vedik sanskrit. Further 'Chandas' used in it shows that it is not at all 'vedik'. It was written by some Krishna Bhakta in Medieval period Just to glorify Krishna. There are several such texts which glorifies ones god and calling all others as demigods . for example , Allopanishad was written in 16 th century to claim that Allah alone is supreme, And Jambava purana says Jambava is father of Adi shakti and Adi shakti in turn produced trimurties. similarly, there is a text in south india which glorifies Viswakarma as supreme being and it says that both Vishnu and Vyasa begged Vishwakarma to give role of 'supreme god' for 10000 years. so viswakarma granted boon for them. etc...etc..etc... All these filthy books are just CULT generated documents.Vedantins simply laugh at the ignorance of these 'CULTS '

2) Bhagavadgita As it is : People often confuse that , 'As it is' means true with out own interpretations . But it is not really so. It is just from 'Gaudiya perspective' only . such things are called COMMENTARIES (Bhashya) only. Adi sankara ( Advaita) , Ramanuja (Vishistadvaita) Madvacharya (Dvaita)etc have written Bhasyas only. They didn't call their Bhasyas as 'Bhagavad Gita AS IT IS' . They are very humble . But Srila Prabhupada showed his stupidity in the Very TITLE it self. This shows his arrogance and hedonistic attitude towards other schools. He Presented Krishna as someone like Biblical God or some Koranic God who want people to worship him only and calling others as Demi gods. This is filthy and foolish as well. If this continues , people may develop wrong concept against Bhagavad Gita. just like 'koran' .

BhagavadGita teaches equality of all paths Gnyana , Karma, Bhakti and Rajayogas. here words of Krishna should not be understood like words of 'Monopolist and Dictator god who seeks sadistic pleasure by ordering his creation to worship him otherwise they will not be liberated. ' These interpretations are suitable for Islam and christianity.

There is no one particular method which can satisfy all beings. Depending upon their temperments they may choose any path (jnana ,Bhakti,Karma and Rajayoga). These paths are not substitutes but complimentaries to each other. Mutual respect should be there. That is the reason why most of the famous Krishna Bhaktas like Jnanadev, Namdev, Gora Kumbhar, Savta Mali, Janabai, Narhari Sonar, Chokha Mahar, Tukaram and Sena Nhav...etc. belong to Advaitha sampradaya only. They know the truth. So they won't call gods of other bhaktas as Demi-gods.

ISKCON people will not encourage commentaries written by other krishna bhaktas like Jnandev..etc ., ISKCON shows its narrow mindedness . Truly speaking ,it is the purity of devotion in the heart of devotees that matters but not the form and name of the god. Names and forms are just 'Devotees' wish. if you want god to come in Spiderman Dress , the god comes to you in such form only. Afterall , Name and form are 'Mere wishes' of devotee but not God's. hence God is beyond form , Name, Abilities, attributes..etc. That is what Advaitha Tradition says.

KRISHNA in VEDA ?????? :

ISKCON calls worshipers of Other gods like Siva, Ganesh,Durga,surya..etc as Anti - Vedics. They claim that they are true vediks. No Saints and Bhaktas in history made such a Stupid Remark against other bhaktas. Before condemning others, ISKCON should know whether KRISHNA is there in vedas or not . Truly speaking , it is impossible because vedas were composed before KRISHNA (physical body) is born. And further , iskcon calls Vishnu as just an aspect of krishna and he can never be equal to krishna. But it copies philosophies of Dvaitha and Vishistadvaita to prove Rudra as a Demigod. For this they Quote distorted translations from vedas.

what ever might be the greatness of Vishnu, he is just mentioned as deva (God) but not as ishwara. As per Rigveda , Indra is somewhat supreme. won't believe me ?

see the following verses which talk about Indra

For men has he created earth and waters, and ever helped the prayer of him who worships. (Rig. 2-20-7)
He sustains the earth that sustains all. (Rig. 2-17-5)
O Lord! You know the inner intention of human. (Rig. 1-81-9)
He sustains the great abode of Light without any support. (Rig. 2-15-2)
He pervades the earth and the abode of Light. (Rig. 3-30-11)
To protect persons like me you have endless powrs. (Rig. 1-8-9)

O Indra! You transcend this space and all planets. (Rig. 1-52-12)

O Indra! There is no end to the omnipresence of your power. (Rig. 1-54-1)

He is Lord of Divine and Material Wealth. (Rig. 2-14-11)

He is the Lord of all, animate and inanimate. (Rig. 1-101-5)

In all forms of this world his form exists. (Rig. 6-47-18)

O Men! Have faith and devotion in that Indra. (Rig. 2-12-5)
This is true that nobody else is like you. (Rig. 1-52-13)

I hope this is sufficient. Vishnu is mentioned as helper to Indra in the fight with Vrittasura. . vishnu is mentioned as one among the Adithyas. He along with indra drinks Soma.

sometimes vishnavites may also quote this :

"Agnir vai devānām avamo Viṣṇuḥ paramas, tadantareṇa sarvā anyā devatā (Aithareya Brahmana 1:1:1)
which literally means , Agni as lowest and vishnu as highest of devas .

This verse should not be interpreted foolishly and come to a conclusion that Agni is the smallest demi god. All devas are one . won't you believe me ? see these verses from rigveda

O Agni, you are Indra, the mighty Lord of all beings; you are adorable Vishnu of immense sweep; O Brahmanaspati (Agni, Lord of prayers); you are Brihaspati, the possessor or wealth; O Ordainer (Agni), you are fill of wisdom. (Rigveda 2.1.3)

O Agni, you are king Varuna, the upholder of all laws; you are to be adored as Mitra who accomplishes wonderful acts; you are Aryaman, the Lord of the discernible world, whose liberality is enjoyed by all; O God Agni, you are Amsa, who is ever eager to grant favors at the sacrifice. (Rigveda 2.1.4)

whatever may be the greatness of vishnu , here Agni is mentioned as vishnu, indra,varuna..etc

indeed all that is only one , but seers say many

They call Him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is the Divine good winged bird (the sun with beautiful rays). The sages describe one and the same Divine Being in various ways and call it Agni, Yama and Matarisvan. (Rigveda 1.164.46)

It is useless to prove who is supreme. Because Upanishads Named what ever supreme as 'brahman ' . Vishnu is just a god as long as he is not identified with Narayana/purusha. similarly Rudra is also just one among gods as long as he is not identified with Iswara /siva.

Iswara/Narayana is just another name given to nirguna Brahman in order to make it sagun brahman.


Puanas are 'smrithi'(remembered) but not sruthi.(revealed) . Hence they are not an authority. It is taken into consideration as long as they won't contradict sruthi . Once it contradicts sruthi then it is to be interpreted differently or ignored completely. The vaishnava puranas call siva as demigod. This need not be true as it contradicts primary upanishads. similarly, shaiva puranas call vishnu as demigod. it is also not true. Hence need not be taken seriously. similarly , Vaishnavites call shaiva puranas as tamasic puranas in order to degrade shaivates. Most people of ISKCON read only vaishnava puranas hence they don't know shaiva puranas. All puranas are compiled by Vyasa himself. how could one purana be called Tamasic and other Satvic.? if it is tamasic then why did he compose it ? It is well known fact that both vaishnavites and shaivates fought to show their superiority . All these stories are result of those fights. Moreover puranas consist of several metaphors of scientific secrets , hence they are not just stories.

Are shiva bhaktas Demons ?

Only idiots say "siva did not save Ravana and Hiranyakaship from Death. hence vishnu is supreme.".

Why should Shiva save those evil doers from death ? They just paid for their acts. And more over, Ravana, kumbakarna are basically Vishnu bhaktas . They are none other than jaya and vijaya ie., dwarapalaks (gate keepers of vaikunta ) They were cursed by sages for their arrogant attitude. They were ordered to be born as demons for three life times.

Firstlife : Hiranyakaship and Hiranyaksh

second life : Ravan and kumbhakarna

third life : Shishupal and Dantavakra

Hence These Demons are basically vishnu bhaktas and not shiva bhaktas.

Suppose if some Shaivate asks something like this : "in Dakshayagna ,could Vishnu save Daksha and Brighu from Shiva Ganas ? "


Sivaya vishnu rupaya, siva rupaya vishnave. (Shiva is in Vishnu form and Vishnu in Shiva form). It is only Narrow minded 'Sectarian' forces which views Differences. even Vishnu sahasranama (one thousand names) calls vishnu with names Shiva (#27 and #600) and Rudra( #114).

ISKCON contradicts VEDAS and Puranas

it doesn't matter whether you belong to Dvaitha , Advaitha and Vishistadvaitha school. all these schools accept Vedas as Highest truth. For their Arguements they take only Vedas as 'material'. Under any circumstances they never take concepts out side vedas. but Iskcon which calls it self "purest Vedic" and no other sampradaya is as perfectly vedic as we are. it deviates from vedas in many aspects. the following mentioned are some of the peculiar Anti-Vedic concepts.

Note: I'm not mentioning the objections raised by Advaitha Vedantists , as ISKCON peoples brains have heen washed by ISKCON god brothers by telling them that the Advaitha vedantists are 'mayavadis,Atheists..etc.hence i'm mentioning objctions of other vedics like Dvaitha

Identification of their Founder Sri Krishna Chaitanya with Lord Krishna

1)They interpret the Bhâgavata text -- kR^ishhNavarNaM kalau kR^ishhNaM ... yajanti hi sumedhasaH as showing Chaitanya (a.k.a. Chaitanya Mahâprabhu) as an incarnation of Vishnu. This interpretation is baseless. No Avatar of the lord in Kaliyuga is stipulated by authorized compositions like Purânas, etc., composed by Sri Veda Vyâsa.

2)There are also basically untrue and fanciful stories in some "historical" works written much after him about Sri Krishna Chaitanya giving assurances to Achârya Madhva of following him and preaching the correct doctrines. Madhva's authentic biography Sumadhvavijaya, composed immediately after Achârya Madhva, and his tradition do not report any such events. Since they are not mentioned, there is no ground for such stories.

3)Even the Vishnu Sahasranâma, known to depict the thousand names of Vishnu, is quoted in support by ISKCON -- suvarNavarNa hemAN^go varAN^gashchandanAN^gadI, etc., which are all used to refer to only one form of the Lord in the original -- to refer to Sri Krishna Chaitanya! Tattvavâda(dvaitha) does not accept these or any such interpretations with no valid basis, which even prima facie appear to fail the test of consistency with valid scriptural statements.

A work called Chaitanya Charitâmrta also elaborates an entirely fanciful account of the visit of Sri Krishna Chaitanya to Udupi and his "defeating" the Tattvavâdi ascetics there. Needless to say, the account has no basis of reality, since it was composed much later with no record of any discussions being preserved. It also, in the words of Mm. B.N.K. Sharma, grossly misunderstands the Tattvavâda position on "the relative positions of karma, j~nâna and bhakti in the scheme of the sâdhana-s". It should also be noted that the fictitious Tattvavâda Achârya in the Chaitanya Charitâmrta is not allowed a single quotation from scripture in favor of his position, while his opponent offers several.


Also to be noted is that Chaitanya propounds a "fifth purushârtha" entirely without support from scripture, but is not challenged upon the point by the Tattvavâda teacher, which is incredible. These and other such bogus accounts appear to be embellishments thought up in the recent past by illiterates. It is against vedas . as per vedas Moksha is ultimate. vedas clearly mention that there is nothing which can supercede Moksha.

According to Tattvavâda, like all other schools of Vedânta( Advaitha..etc), Moksha is the Supreme Purushârtha or objective of the Soul. The realization of one's own nature of bliss for eternal enjoyment is by the grace of the Supreme Being. By His Aparoksha, the veils obscuring the Jîva's own swarupa and that of the Supreme Being are removed. The intense love of the Supreme Being, called devotion, continues in Moxa as well. Since it is natural and is of the essential nature of the Jîva himself, it transforms itself into Bliss.
On the other hand, ISKCON considers that there is a fifth purushârtha even superior to Moksha, which a true devotee of Krishna will seek. This is prema bhakti, of the same kind as the Gopis had for Krishna in His incarnation. This devotion involves performing some service to the Lord, which will continue even after liberation. This appears to be based on a superficial reading of a verse from Bhâgavata extolling the love that very exalted devotees have for the Supreme being by saying that their devotion is so natural and intense that they do not have even Mukti as their objective. They say that this love will continue even after Mukti and is not a substitute thereof. This concept is not accepted by Tattvavâda, as Achârya Madhva has quoted in Gîtâ Bhâshya (Chapter 2 -- shloka 50

Râdhâ -- a bogus deity

There are other concepts based essentially on Brahma Vaivarta Purâna allegedly glorifying Râdhâ as superior even to Lakshmî (eternal consort of the Lord), the superior position of Goloka, etc. None of these find a place in Tattvavâda, and these quotes are all equally bogus.

False attribution of Madhva's Authorship

A completely bogus text called Tatvamuktâvali or Mayâvâda-Shata- Dushani, written by an 18th century scholar called Poornânanda, has been wrongly attributed to Achârya Madhva. There are authentic and traditional documents which clearly show that this is totally incorrect.

Can it Be That the Hare Krishnas Are Not Hindu?

This is a Article published in HINDUISM TODAY on Oct 1998

ISKCON's Srila Prabhupada's edicts on religion are clear
There is a misconception," wrote His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada in 1977 in Science of Self Realization, "that the Krishna consciousness movement represents the Hindu religion. Sometimes Indians both inside and outside of India think that we are preaching the Hindu religion, but actually we are not." In chapter three of the book [available from Bhaktivedanta Archives, P.O. Box 255, Sandy Ridge, North Carolina 27046 USA], this startling point is made several times: "The Krishna consciousness movement has nothing to do with the Hindu religion or any system of religion.... One should clearly understand that the Krishna consciousness movement is not preaching the so-called Hindu religion."
Followers of Srila Prabhupada have assembled all of his letters, books, lectures, interviews and conversations on the Bhaktivedanta Vedabase [also available from Bhaktivedanta Archives]. This CD-Rom database yielded 183 references to Hinduism, which were compiled and analyzed to understand Srila Prabhupada's point of view.
Often Srila Prabhupada would simply deny the existence of a religion called "Hinduism." He attributed the improper designation to "foreign invaders." At other times he acknowledged the existence of the faith, but considered it a hopelessly degraded form of the original Sanatana Dharma of the Vedas. In his April, 1967, New York lectures he remarked, "Although posing as great scholars, ascetics, householders and swamis, the so-called followers of the Hindu religion are all useless, dried-up branches of the Vedic religion." ISKCON, he believed, was the only true exponent of the Vedic faith today. In an interview given for Bhavan's Journal on June 28, 1976, he said, "India, they have given up the real religious system, Sanatana Dharma. Fictitiously, they have accepted a hodgepodge thing which is called Hinduism. Therefore there is trouble."
The Guru frequently explained his position, and acted upon his beliefs in establishing his dynamic society. At a 1974 Mumbai lecture, he declared, "We are not preaching Hindu religion. While registering the association, I purposely kept this name, 'Krishna Consciousness,' neither Hindu religion nor Christian nor Buddhist religion."
Srila Prabhupada was aware that the Indian community had a mistaken impression of his Hinduness. In a 1970 letter to a temple administrator in Los Angeles, he wrote, "The Hindu community in the West has got some good feeling for me because superficially they are seeing that I am spreading Hindu religion, but factually this Krishna Consciousness movement is neither Hindu religion nor any other religion." That remains the case today, for Srila Prabhupada left no successor with the authority to change his spiritual edicts.
So why does the general Hindu community mistakenly believe that ISKCON is a Hindu organization, when it never describes itself as such? Well, it sometimes does. During the recent ISKCON temple openings in New Delhi and Bangalore, where newspaper reports frequently identified the grand temples as Hindu, the ISKCON press releases, such as that of April 15, 1998, never used the H word. Yet, when Indian devotees serving at each of those temples were asked in late July by journalists for this article, they said it is a Hindu temple. The discrepancy between public perception and internal policy is further confused by the group's official exceptions to the non-Hindu position. Faced with difficulties, ISKCON leaders have appealed to the Hindu community to back them up, as in a dispute over the Bhaktivedanta Manor in the UK or when being hassled by Christians in Russia and Poland. In appeals to judges and governments, the word Hindu is openly used. In other legal cases, including one to the US Supreme Court, ISKCON has attempted to counteract the "cult" label by claiming to be a traditional Hindu lineage, and asked other Hindus to affirm this in the courts. Other organizations who parted company with Hinduism, such as Transcendental Meditation and Brahma Kumaris, do not compromise their position under any circumstances.
What also sets ISKCON apart is its open repudiation and criticism of Hinduism, especially among members. There are reports of Hindus who joined ISKCON only to be taught to reject their family's religion. "Previously we were Hindus. Now we are Hare Krishnas," some said. At the same time, the organization often appeals to the Hindu community and businessmen for financial support of its social programs and political help to protect ISKCON from detractors.
Considering ISKCON's appearances--member's dress, names, bhajana, festivals, worship, scripture, pilgrimage, temple building, and so forth--it's little wonder that so many have assumed they are Hindus. To find out they are not will certainly surprise many--Hindus and non-Hindus alike. It may even surprise a few Hare Krishnas themselves