ISKCON ICC Attacks Srila Prabhupada's Rasa

India ISKCON ICC's Pedophile Guru Program.

(A) They endorse pedophiles as gurus, then 

(B) they attack Srila Prabhupada as only shanta rasa

because he uses (C) The jnana mudra.

JND: Recently one of the ISKCON Shastric Advisory Council members (Hari Parshada Das) wrote an article where he claims jnana mudra is a sign of shanta rasa and never used by Gaudiya vaishnavas. His article was obviously a covert attack on the newly installed Prabhupada deity of ISKCON Bangalore where Srila Prabhupada is shown holding jnana mudra. The manner in which his article is presented, as though its just a random coincidence, and not directed towards the new deity of Srila Prabhupada, is quite dishonest. Likewise the bizare upside down "logic" he uses to come to his conclusion is also ridiculous.

Srila Prabhupada is -- shanta rasa?

Total speculation on their part!

I probably would have ignored the topic, but the way in which he deletes any comments that disagree with his position are not the sign of an honest discussion. In fact he got irritated enough to unfriend me for just posting a comment that disagreed with him. These type of "scholars" need to be called out, so lets discuss this topic.

Gaura and Nitai are also Shanta Rasa.

What!

His position is that since those in shanta rasa also display jnana mudra, therefore jnana mudra can only be shown by those in shanta rasa, and no one else. He wrongly concludes that to have a gaudiya acharya show jnana mudra would indicate that he must be in shanta rasa.

Madhvacarya is Shanta Rasa?

It is like saying criminals hold guns, therefore police are also criminals because they also hold guns. Describing what a criminal displays (a gun) does not define the gun, or make everyone who holds a gun a criminal. Likewise describing that those in shanta rasa display jnana mudra, does not define jnana mudra, or make everyone who displays jnana mudra a person of shanta rasa. Even a child can understand this simple logic.

His entire position, is based on three words from Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu (3.1.24), a small cut portion of a long description of those in shanta rasa, which describes them as "jñāna-mudrā-pradarśanam", displaying the jnana mudra.

Based on this simple description stating that people in shanta rasa display jnana mudra, he concludes the following erroneous idea:

"Clearly, the Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇava position is that this mudrā is displayed mainly by those who are experiencing śānta-rasa."

And then:

"None of the Gauḍīya-vaiṣṇavas are interested in śānta-rasa. ... This is the reason why we do not find any of the mūrtis of the six gosvāmīs in jñāna-mudrā."

His theory is that jnana mudra is the sole property of those in shanta rasa, and an indication that one is automatically in shanta rasa if he displays it. He extrapolates this bizarre conclusion from a reverse description, "those in shanta rasa display jnana mudra".

The verse in Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu is describing people in shanta rasa, it is not defining jnana mudra or its inherent rasa. Jnana mudra does not become equal to shanta rasa just because people in shanta rasa display jnana mudra. This is a most basic concept of logic and comprehension, which apparently those on ISKCON's top Shastric Advisory Council cannot comprehend.

They are unable to understand basic level logic, "what in a sentence is being defined", but they are supposed to be responsible for guiding the ISKCON society in understanding shastra. This is how we end up with such people pushing ridiculous leftist liberal concepts in ISKCON through this "Shastric Advisory Council".

[PADA: Even the liberals do not worship pedophiles as their messiahs.]

If one were to read the other descriptions in the same section of Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu, you will find those in shanta rasa also display divine symptoms such as hair standing on end. Does this mean no one else in other rasas can display these transcendental symptoms? Their "logic" is not being consistent.

His logical fallacy is that he takes a verse describing people in shanta rasa, and flips it as a definition of jnana mudra. When this basic fallacy is pointed out, he gets angry and resorts to deleting comments and blocking you. This is the character of those on ISKCON's Shastric Advisory Council. They feel they should be above question, and no one should point out any fault in their conclusions, but we, the entire ISKCON society, should all blindly be forced to accept their position papers and the entire society should bow to their whims without scrutiny.

Now as far as whether jnana mudra is the monopoly of those in shanta rasa, let us look at some descriptions of Lord Krishna.

In the Gopala Tapaniya Upanishad, there is a verse on how to meditate on Lord Krishna, which is also quoted by Sanatana Goswami in Hari Bhakti Vilasa:

satpuṇḍarīkanayanaṃ meghābhaṃ vaidyutāmbaram

dvibhujaṃ jñānamudrāḍhyaṃ vanamālinam īśvaram

"Lord Krishna’s eyes are like perfect lotus petals, his bodily color is that of a monsoon cloud, and his garments are the color of lightning. He has two arms, and his hands are held in the jnana mudra. He is wearing a garland of forest flowers."

Here we see Lord Krishna is meditated on as holding his hands in jnana mudra. It is not that jnana mudra is the monopoly of those situated in shanta rasa.

Oh no! Even Krishna is only Shanta Rasa!

Further we find a description of Lord Krishna from the famous Bhagavad Gita dhyana sloka, quoted by Srila Prabhupada in the book "Science of Self Realization":

prapanna parijātāya totravetraikapānaye

jnanamudrāya krishnāya gitāmrita duhe nama

The poetic translation which has been approved of by Srila Prabhupada, and commented on in his book, is as follows:

"Thy one hand holds a staff

For driving cows,

And Thy other hand is raised –

The thumb touching the tip

Of Thy forefinger,

Indicating divine knowledge.

Salutations to Thee, O Supreme Lord,

For Thou art the milker

Of the ambrosia of the Gītā."

Again Lord Krishna is meditated on as holding one hand in jnana mudra and another holding a stick for herding cows. The jnana mudra is a divine expression used by Lord Krishna and other transcendental personalities. It is not the monopoly of those in shanta rasa, nor the impersonalists, and the fact that those in shanta rasa ALSO display it does not define the jnana mudra in any way whatsoever.

All of the mudras, such as abhaya mudra, varada mudra, jnana mudra, etc., are divine expressions. They are not the monopoly of any particular group of trasncendentalists.

Now let us look at some different deities which are shown displaying jnana mudra, and we can clearly understand it is not being restricted to those personalities in shanta rasa.

First let us see the deities of Gaur Nitai worshipped by Sanatana Goswami at Imlitala. You can see Nityananda prabhu clearly holding his hands in jnana mudra. Obviously, this does not indicate that he is displaying symptoms of shanta rasa. As the adi guru he is the source of giving all divine spiritual knowledge.

It is fairly common in all sampradayas to have deities of the guru displaying jnana mudra, as the guru gives us spiritual knowledge symbolized by this hand gesture. It has absolutely nothing to do with which rasa they are relating to the Lord in.

In Srirangam we find at the samadhi of Ramanujacharya, his deity, which some people claim to be his original body, is sitting in padmasana and clearly displaying jnana mudra. Ramanujacharya is not in shanta rasa, he is a servant and devotee of the Lord.

Likewise we can find many deities of Madhvacharya, where he is shown displaying the jnana mudra. He too is a devotee servant of the Lord, and not in shanta rasa. In Vrindava you can find the deity of Nimbarkacharya of Kumara sampradya also displaying the jnana mudra, and that is the standard presentation of his murti in their mathas.

Basically, we can find examples from every Vaishnava sampradaya of their acharya being shown displaying jnana mudra, and it has nothing to do with them being in shanta rasa.

Unfotunately this "scholar" doesn't understand comprehension in a sentence, and failed to understand what is being defined in the phrase "jñāna-mudrā-pradarśanam". It is not a definition of jnana-mudra or which rasa it represents, it is simply a description of the person in shanta rasa and what lakshanas he displays. Based on his miscomprehension, he made a convulated conclusion that no Goswami deity displays jnana mudra because they are not in shanta rasa.

The real reason why you won't find a deity of a Goswami displaying jnana mudra is much, much simpler than what he claims, and that is because prior to 100 years ago no goswami samadhi had deities of themself. 

Gaudiya Vaishnava samadhis originally just had a small stone to represent the saint, which was worshipped as him. Tilak would be applied to the stone, and a harinama chaddar would be wrapped around the stone, as though the stone was the person. This has been the standard for all Goswami and acharya samadhis in Vrindavan, Bengal and Odisha.

So again his system of logic is ridiculous. There are NO goswami deities, it wasn't a custom to keep deities of Goswamis at their samadhis. And he twists this to say, this is his proof because there are no Goswami deities showing jnana mudra. He omits the fact there are no deities AT ALL. Deities in goswami samadhis came in recent times, they are not more than 100 years old.

So in conclusion, first of all he does not understand simple comprehension and logic, to differentiate in a sentence what is the object being defined. And second, he twists and misrepresents the non-presence of something to be the proof that his statement is correct.

Now, since he is supposedly an ISKCON scholar, and he claims that jnana mudra is not used in gaudiya vaishnavism, as it only represents shanta rasa, let him explain how ISKCON has installed the lifesize deity of Gauranga Mahaprabhu at Simantadvipa showing jnana mudra as He teaches Goddess Parvathi. Let him point the finger at his own people and explain to them that they are clowns and only he knows what is the proper tradition of Gaudiya Vaishnava hand mudras for deities. Let him convince the ISKCON leaders that they are wrong and they need to remove that deity of Gauranga Mahaprabhu, all because he has misunderstood three words from Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu.

Some people may think this is a harsh presentation, but these people weaponize philosophy to attack their enemies. This is not the first time he has done this. They have no personal moral stand which they hold to be true. They work everything backwards, and when they want to attack an opposing side they twist and manufacture a philosophy for the purpose of hurting the "enemy", not for promoting truth. This is the reality of ISKCON's Shastric Advisory Council, which is just a weapon used by some leaders to attack their so-called "enemies".

[PADA: ISKCON ICC guru parampara contains illicit sex with men, women and children, and maybe -- cats. Not sure why the GBC has selected them to comment on anything. ys pd]

They tried to get me to take down the article because it would make their ICC scholar look bad:

APR 30, 2019, 4:10 PM

Urmila Devi Dasi: Are you willing to remove from your blog entry the fact that the person is a member of the Sastric Advisory Council? He was not writing in that capacity and the other members of the council do not agree with his position. He was writing as an individual. Otherwise, it looks like all of us are guilty and it was something that was in an official paper. Other members of the council are concerned about this problem.

APR 30, 2019, 10:30 PM

Urmila Devi Dasi: Hari Parshad will remove his post as it was being misused. If you are willing to remove your blog entry, or to re-write it without reference to his post, that would be most welcome.