Talk:New Vrindaban

NPOV tag

I added the POV tag because this article contains information that is written as though the article is a publicity piece- "cow protection program that provides love and care to our substabtial bovine population" "spreading the teachings of Krsna Consciousness in many progressive and exciting fashions" "The Palace became a beacon of Krsna consciousness" etc.

crisw 04:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is definitely unencyclopedic and promotional in its present form. If there are no objections I will start rephrasing it tomorrow towards a NPOV. Rumiton (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Started today. A couple of statements require a specific reference and page number. Rumiton (talk) 10:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The article still reads like promotional literature for tourists, if not for devotees. PurpleChez (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I will remove the blatant stuff and you can help. Wikid^as© 12:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

Shouldn't this be moved to New Vrindaban? Badagnani (talk) 20:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Done. Badagnani (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Krishna 5000 years ago

Thank you Henry for making the ref more neutral, but now the word advent used as a verb gives me pause. I can't find it in my Oxford. If this is, as I suspect, part of the house vocabulary of ISKCON it should probably be replaced by something more English and encyclopedic. Thanks. Rumiton (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sri Nathji Deity - incorrect information

"On July 4th, 1983, Vedavyasapriya Swami installed the Shrinathji deity at the ISKCON temple of New Vrindaban.[3]"

Fellas, c'mon! This is not true! Vedavyasapriya Swami did not install the Sri Nathji deity at NV. He wasn't even a swami until 3 years later. The deity was installed by Kirtanananda Swami Bhaktipada. The Brijabasi Spirit [Gargarishi Das, “Radha-Vrindaban Chandra Festival,” Brijabasi Spirit, vol. X, no. IV (c. August 1983), 17.] reported:

Radha-Vrindaban Chandra, Gaura-Nitai, and Gopala Nathji were placed on Their altars, which had been drilled with nine small holes. In the holes were placed nine precious jewels of the nine major planets. They were then filled with turmeric. A yantra—a small piece of gold plated copper, inscribed with a six-pointed star, an eight-pointed lotus flower, and the mula and gayatri mantras of each Deity, was placed under the Deities. . .

Shyamasundar, one of the priests, had calculated that . . . the most auspicious time would be at 11:32 p.m., Saturday night. . . . Everyone was in a flurry of activity to meet the deadline. . . . Gaura-Nitai and Gopal Nathji were the new Deities to be installed, so Their eyes were covered with beeswax. After installation, the beeswax would be removed, and the Deities would see an offering of auspicious items.

Then came one of the most meaningful events of the festival. It was time for the spiritual master to invoke the presence of the Deities. . . . The curtains were closed, but a few of us were able to watch Shrila Bhaktipada place his hands over the hearts of Gaura Nitai and Gopal Nathji and ask Them to enter the forms, thus making Them worshipable.

It was Bhaktipada who installed the deities, including Sri Nathji. There is a photograph of Bhaktipada reaching out and touching the chest of Sri Nathji on page 18. Sri Nathji's eyes are covered with beeswax. No where in the 7 page article is Vedavyasa-priya Swami mentioned.

I helped carry the Sri Nathji deity from a vehicle to the temple, along with about five other men, the deity was incredibly heavy; solid stone, marble I think. I believe the vehicle was Atmarama's van. Yes, he and his wife made arrangements for everything, in close cooperation with Vedavyasa-priya dasa, who was not yet a sannyasi. This is explained in detail by Revati Devi Dasi, "How Sri Nathji Came to New Vrindaban: A Recollection on the Travels of the Lord," Brijabasi Spirit, (c. Autumn 1984), pp.34-35, 40.

The article "Sri Nathji: The Transcendental Cowherd Boy Goes West" by Madhava Smullen on 26 Jul 2008 published at ISKCON News Weekly (written over two decades after the fact) is incorrect about the installation of the deities. Source materials should have greater weight than stuff written 25 years later by someone who was not even there at the time.

What does as person have to do to get nonsense untruths deleted from articles like this? Henry Doktorski (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Henry, based upon what you've said, it sounds like someone was quoting inaccurate information from an inaccurate article. They probably didn't know this, or it could be part of a larger issue of people trying to forget that Kirtanananda Swami ever existed and that he ran New Vrindaban as the main guru from the beginning of the community until he had to leave around 1994 or so. Based on all the information I've examined on New Vrindaban and this era, Kirtanananda Bhaktipada was almost like a "king" there (according to the documentary film Holy Cow Swami, some people even wore shirts that said "Bhaktipada is King") and certainly nothing was done without his consent. Anything that was a big deal, like deities and such, it seems would've been done only with his permission. I vote we remove the inaccurate information until more accurate sources can be found and presented. Geneisner (talk) 11:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because you do not agree with a particular article does not make it incorrect, it just means you disagree with it. As Henry has done, other sources must be provided - especially when there is contraditions in the information at hand. For now, I will replace the quote that was removed with a section that mentions two points of view from two sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, agreed, the quote is much better now that it presents both points of view on this questionably relevant or irrelevant topic in regards to this article. Nevertheless, I think Henry's point of view still makes more sense given the fact that Kirtanananda Swami was the big chief swami guru of New Vrindaban at the time. The head honcho big kahuna guru like that is usually the one running the show at such operations, and at New Vrindaban, as they say, "Bhaktipada was King". But, as they also used to say, "Ladies and gentlemen, the King has left the building". But as Neil Young once said, "The King is gone, but he's not forgotten. This is the story of Johnny Rotten." :-) Geneisner (talk) 06:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I attempted an undo but discovered it deleted Geneisner's last comment, so I have undid the undo and manually changed the section title. "Two stories exist" does not convey my intended communication, and so I have changed the section title back to my original "Incorrect information."

This is an example of what happens when well-meaning people with very little knowledge about a particular topic try to edit a page in Wikipedia. They find some complete nonsense on the Internet and say, "Oh, look at this! Another factoid I can add to this page."

For instance, the July 18, 2008 Columbus Dispatch published an article about the New Vrindaban Hare Krishna Community by Sarah Pulliam titled "Devotees of Hare Krishna, including 200 in Columbus, are drawn by melodic chanting, peaceful approach to all beings." See http://newvrindaban.com/index.php?view=article&catid=59:news-a-events&id=130:news-art-71808&tmpl=component&print=1&page=&option=com_content&Itemid=154.

In the article the author claims "Although they are trying to recruit members, Nityo Dasa, co-founder of the West Virginia temple, said the group in Columbus has become much more focused on its current devotees."

Pulliam claims that Nityo Dasa was a co-founder of New Vrindaban. This is completely ridiculous. It is laughable. Anyone who knows anything about New Vrindaban knows that this cannot possibly be true. Everyone knows that Kirtanananda Swami and Hayagriva were the co-founders of the community in 1968. Nityo didn't even come to the community until the mid-1970s. The author's notes were obviously poorly written, or she misunderstood a statement. When I read this article I called Nityo on the phone to laugh about it. I said, "Yeah, in a hundred years someone will find that article and re-write the history of New Vrindaban."

Yet, someone who might have an interest in New Vrindaban, but who factually knows very little about it, might see this and say "Oh! Look at this! I have discovered some fascinating information. Two stories exist about the founding of New Vrindaban! I must post this on the New Vrindaban Wikipedia page."

In the future, another author might publish, "No, it was Henry Doktorski who was the co-founder of New Vrindaban." Then another Wikipedia editor might amend the New Vrindaban page, "Three stories exist." See where this leads?

This is my opinion. Just because some author publishes some incorrect information, it doesn't mean that it has any validity. In such cases, an expert should be consulted to avoid spreading rumor and untruth. Just my humble opinion. Henry Doktorski (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Two contrasting Shrinathji stories

In the New Vrindavan article there are two stories concerning the Shrinathji deity. If anyone has issue with either source, please expand. Though, please note that ANYONE may say that such and such is incorrect - but "I believe this" and "I believe that" are NOT Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Therefore, we must discuss the sources at hand and not go off on our own personal opinions, even if the are a "humble opinion." I have placed the two souced below. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• According to ISKCON News, July 4th, 1983, Vedavyasa Priya Swami installed the Shrinathji deity at the ISKCON temple of New Vrindaban. And, in contrast, according to Gargarishi Das, “Radha-Vrindaban Chandra Festival,” Brijabasi Spirit, vol. X, no. IV (c. August 1983), 17, the deity was not installed by Vedavyasa Priya (who incidentally was not yet a Swami at the time), but was installed by Kirtanananda Swami.

Copy of my note on VVPS page:

I am sure that this can be seen as a disputed view, as some suggest that priest who installed a murti may be named as the person who installed the form, as well as the spiritual head of organization. The fact that the accent had changed is because the person who used to be called Bhaktipada is no longer head of the sect. Thus sectarian politics try to remove reference to his 'spritual powers' (that are described when he ceremonially puts his hands on the deity) are not mention, (it appears this is) because members of the sect do not have the same faith that just by touching he had the potency to 'invite' Deity to descent. Thus a more pragmatic (and understandable) view is expressed where actual priest (Vedavyasapriya) at the time is named as the persona who performed the ceremony, since this is not disputed by anyone. There is no dispute the the Vedavyasa pirya was the priest at the time, there is however a doubt that touch (that forms a small part of the ceremony) of Sriman Kirtanananda was sufficient (for these purposes). (One needs to balance this in Wiki) Thus it needs to be presented rightly under WP:YESPOV.Wikidās ॐ 06:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Friends, Thank you for your input. I just wish to point out a few details from the article "Radha Vrindaban Candra Festival" by Gargarsi dasa in Brijabasi Spirit (Vol. X, No. IV, c. August 1983) which you may read online at:

http://henrydoktorski.com/images/nv/RVC_Festival_1.jpg

http://henrydoktorski.com/images/nv/RVC_Festival_2.jpg

http://henrydoktorski.com/images/nv/RVC_Festival_3.jpg

http://henrydoktorski.com/images/nv/RVC_Festival_4.jpg

http://henrydoktorski.com/images/nv/RVC_Festival_5.jpg

http://henrydoktorski.com/images/nv/RVC_Festival_6.jpg

http://henrydoktorski.com/images/nv/RVC_Festival_7.jpg

I consider this article, written immediately after the installation of the deities by an eyewitness, to be a reliable source material. This seven-page article is a detailed account of the installation of the deities. I have no complaint about the ISKCON News Weekly article titled "Sri Nathji: The Transcendental Cowherd Boy Goes West" by Madhava Smullen posted on 26 Jul 2008, except he should have written (see caps) "The devotees drink in the beauty of Sri Nathji as they celebrate the festival joyously. Among them is Vedavyasa-priya Swami, Nathji’s priest, who brought the deity here and ASSISTED IN THE INSTALLATION OF him back on July 4th, 1983 with the help of Atmarama Dasa and his wife Revati Dasi."

Please note:

(1) Gaura Kesava was the head priest for the installation of the deities. See page 16, column 2, bottom paragraph. His name is mentioned constantly throughout the article.

(2) Veda Vyasa was one of the five assistant priests, although his name is not mentioned anywhere in the article. However, he appears in the photograph on page 16, assisting the head priest who is carrying the chakra on his head.

(3) All the officiating priests were acting on behalf of the spiritual master, who at that time was Kirtanananda Swami Bhaktipada. I quote: "Gaura Kesava introduced Srila Bhaktipada and then added, 'All the worship that you will be seeing during this festival is actually performed by the spiritual master. We will be helping him in the ceremonies, but it is he who is doing the puja. We are simply his assistants in his service to the Supreme Lord.'" See p. 14, column 2.

(4) The actual installation of Sri Nathji was not conducted by the head priest or the assistant priests, it was conducted personally by Kirtanananda Swami. "Then came one of the most meaningful events of the festival. It was time to invoke the presence of the Deities. The spiritual master is the one who actually asks Krsna to reside in the Deity form. The curtains were closed but a few of us were able to watch Srila Bhaktipada place his hands over the hearts of Gaura Nitai and Gopala Nathaji and asked Them to enter the forms, thus making Them worshipable." See p. 27, column 1, midway down the page.

(5) Notice photograph of Bhaktipada placing hand over the heart of Sri Nathji on p. 18.

This ends the presentation of my case. I will allow the more experienced Wikipedia editors to do whatever, if anything, they think is proper. Sincerely, Henry Doktorski (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• At present, there are two sources representing two points of view on this subject. One is from the institution that New Vrindaban is a part of, which is ISKCON. This source is online and can be read by all at ISKCON News. The other source is from Brijabasi Spirit. This journal is not available for review as only a copy is provided from a personal website. Also who the journal represents, and what reliability it has, is presently unknown. Given the above, both have been included in the article and are referenced as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

  I (Shyamasundara Dasa https://shyamasundaradasa.com/) was one of the person's who helped Gaura Keshava Dasa perform the ceremonies. On page 27 of the Brijabasi spirit they spell my name "Syamasundara" I was the astrologer who chose the time (11:32 PM) for the murti stapana (placing the Deities on the altar) and the prana-pratishtha (invoking the presence of the Deity). On page 15 that is me bending down to pick up a tray. And on page 16 that is me with the wide sikha and back to the camera greeting the Deities. I can confirm that what Henry Doktorski says is 100% true. Gaura Keshava was the Rtvik and Kirtananada Swami was the Yajamana. Which means that the specially trained Rtvik performs the rituals on behalf of the Yajaman, and the Yajaman gets the benefits and credit, not the Rtvik. And in this case the important parts of the ceremony were done by Kirtananda Swami. I do not recall who the others were that assisted Gauara Keshava and me. One of them may have been Gaura Shakti Dasa, and Vedavyasa Priya Prabhu (now Swami) may have also assisted. But even if Veda Vyasa Priya assisted, it would have been in the capacity of assistant Rtvik. Please correct the entry and remove the inaccurate statement. 67.204.220.21 (talk) 23:50, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

References

Merger of Palace of Gold

The AFD that closed on 24 March 2010 had a consensus to merge the content of Prabhupada's Palace of Gold into this article. Right now the Palace of Gold is covered in the /* History */ section. The first two paragraphs are fully covered there. However, the remaining four paragraphs of the Prabhupada's Palace of Gold article still need to be merged. Should /* Palace of Gold */ be a subheading under the /* History */ section ? or should it be a top level heading ? Should the remaining four paragraphs be trimmed, since, for example, the quotation really doesn't add much? --Bejnar (talk) 19:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Top level heading and yes, trimming is a good idea. You are right there. Wikid^as© 22:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have completed the merger. --Bejnar (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Poor Building Techniques

When my book is published there will be a valid reference source for this:

Cheating on the concrete.

To Kirtanananda Swami, time was of the utmost importance. He wanted Prabhupada’s Palace finished as soon as possible, and in order to get the most service out of the New Vrindaban residents he preached to them to “surrender totally to Krishna.” Yet in his haste to build the Palace quickly, sometimes quality was sacrificed, which in decades to come, would prove ruinous as the Palace eventually began crumbling and falling apart in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Bhagavatananda, the Palace designer and construction supervisor (at least until 1977-78) explained, “They were cheating on the concrete, the water mix, and the measurements on the engineering for the rebar [concrete reinforcing steel rods]. I said, ‘You people are looking for trouble, because if this stuff fails, these things can fall on people.’ That’s one of the disagreements I had with Kirtanananda. He’d tell me, ‘You’re not surrendered.’ In other words: ‘just shut up; I’m taking care of it; I’m doing it.’ I don’t think it was to save money; I think it was because there were egos involved. This woman [Sanatan Devi Dasi] came along who was an architect. And she was supposed to be the one to take the credit for the whole thing.”

Bhagavatananda Das, telephone conversation with the author (June 30, 2005), cited by Henry Doktorski in "Chapter 6: Prabhupada’s Palace of Gold," from Gold, Guns 'n God (2008 manuscript). Henrydoktorski (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Henry, I think that part should be included in the article as well, because there are some problems with the Palace of Gold complex. Don't get me wrong, it's a beautiful place, and I ain't no architect, but it doesn't take an architect to see that there are some problems. I last visited as a tourist last summer, 2007. The main part of the palace, the part where the stained-glass windows section leads to the inner temple room doesn't seem to be in too bad of shape. The outer walls of the main palace don't really look too bad either (some spots of deterioration here and there.) However, it's the outer walls around the main palace that seem to be deteriorating and crumbling in some places. If one looks at those outer walls even a little bit, they can see this. Especially the wall around the palace visible from the road, the one that isn't attached to the palace. That outer wall was most likely made as cheaply and quickly as possible. One can see some spots on this wall where the faux red brick is crumbling, exposing a cheap-looking wire mesh and plaster construct underneath. If anyone wants to see evidence of these things, then they can check out this video on Google videos about the "Palace of Gold Makeover" that took place in 2006.[1] In that video, one can see where parts of the complex are deteriorating and crumbling, and the ISKCON Youth Ministry shown in the video repairs some sections and also paints. Like I said, the last time I visited the palace, last summer 2007, it didn't look too bad, but there were some visible signs of deterioration on the outer walls and especially the wall around the palace that isn't directly attached to the main building. Perhaps one thing that isn't said enough about this place in general is that it is located on a hill with an excellent view of the surrounding tree-covered hills and valleys. When one first approaches the palace after driving through the hills on those long winding country roads, it is still an interesting sight to see. Fartbucket (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Foolish Protectionism: Clearly there are problems with the design, construction techniques and materials. Anyway, a Lexus-Nexus search came up with some references to put it back in. Don't have time right now. 75.88.124.32 (talk) 04:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, 75.88.124.32, for the record, it was Ism schism who removed your comments regarding this issue twice from the article. The first time at 13:21, 22 June 2008, and the second time at 04:44, 24 June 2008, according to the revision history logs for this article. I see nothing wrong with your comment about "poor building techniques and materials", which was stated in the following sentence: "Since the early 1990s, due to mismanagement, poor building techniques and materials, and lack of sufficient financial resources, Palace maintenance has been sometimes neglected, but tens of thousands of tourists and Hindu pilgrims reportedly still visit each year.[4]" Perhaps if we try and discuss this issue with Ism schism, either on this talk page or on Ism schism's talk page, we can work this matter out in a way most agreeable to everyone based on the evidence. I think there's enough evidence to state what you have indicated in that particular sentence for the article, and Henry seemed to also confirm this above. We've discussed this matter here and are open for others to speak their minds on this matter also. What I find interesting, is that the palace was mostly built by devotees who were, more or less, "regular people", and were not architects or even highly skilled at building (for the most part.) This may be another reason for some design flaws. Yet, they built this interesting shrine for their spiritual leader, Prabhupada, in the hills of West Virginia. In my opinion, the story of how it was accomplished, even though it can be wild and scandalous at times, is still quite fascinating. Fartbucket (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

POV tag

On 18 September 2007 User:Crisw placed a POV tag on the article. No discussion has taken place here about those problems, if any. Based upon the lack of discussion, and the changes in the article since the tag was placed, I have removed the POV tag. If anyone has POV concerns, please express them here identifying the specific language and why it has POV problems. That would help other editors, such as myself, to rewrite the problematic sentences. Without specifics there is not much that we can do. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV warning

This article is not consistent with news reports such as that at http://web.archive.org/web/20120728044538/http://www.rickross.com/reference/krishna/krishna79.html

NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/25/us/swami-bhaktipada-ex-hare-krishna-leader-dies-at-74.html

" who later pleaded guilty to federal racketeering charges that included conspiracy to commit the murders-for-hire of two devotees, "

The facts behind the expulsion concern racketeering and a double homicide with guilty plea?

How to reconcile this article with the likes of http://www.neirr.org/Krishnaproblems.htm ??

What is the NPOV term for a bogus citation such as #4 ? That reference is irrelevant to the statement to which it is attached. A proper citation would be to a US newspaper court report as to the legally determined cause for the expulsion. Had Mr. Ham been found not guilty (had he not pled guilty) is it reasonable to assume that expulsion would have occurred regardless?

G. Robert Shiplett 02:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Confusing reference

The "References and footnotes" section leads off with a statement, "All information is sourced to the following article unless stated otherwise:", and a citation that leads to a subscription-required article dated 2006.

As of January 2016 the article is well-footnoted and what sentences remain un-footnoted could be checked and referenced to other articles easily, so the statement no longer applies. But the article might have unique content. Should it be removed, or moved to "See also," or linked like the regular reference it should be to some specific content, if someone has access to the article? Fishlandia (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Vrindaban, West Virginia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522081815/http://vyasapuja.net/iskcongbc/resolutions/gbc/iskcon-gbc-resolution-1987 to http://vyasapuja.net/iskcongbc/resolutions/gbc/iskcon-gbc-resolution-1987

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

POV again as of 2018

A POV article by now 2018, not mentioning most of the controversies backed by RSes.

A reminder to fellow Wikipedians: you should not revert such talk page comments (see the history of this page): as they are not in the article itself. Do not do it again. Zezen (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)