Kirtana article in Time magazine -

Hare Krsna Prabhus,

Today the newest Time magazine has an article about Kirtana. The people interviewed are not from the Brahma,Madhva,Guadiya,BHAKTIVEDANTA Sampradaya. However they do chant some names of God from the sanskrit. I think i will write to them to get a letter in Time for showing this is not anything new, and how in every big city of the world(almost) there is Kirtana already. And tell a little about our Sampradaya Acarya Srila Prabhupada.

I see one potential difficulty with your nice idea.

Leaders of the Bhaktivedanta-parivara have testified in several court cases that, according to their religion, kirtan is not primarily the congregational chanting of the Lord's names. Rather, they have testified, it is about selling cookies, paintings, books, record albums, etc. in order to propagate the faith.

When a court has said that they can "only chant" in some semi-public location, and not engage in paraphernalia sales, Bhaktivedanta-parivar leaders have condemned such restrictions as preventing their kirtan.

So, before you write your letter, I urge you to ask yourself: does my religion's "kirtan" really parallel the "kirtan" described in the Time magazine article? Or do the "monks" of my tradition actually spend more time performing the "kirtan" of paraphernalia sales than the "kirtan" of the public chanting of the Lord's names? If your letter makes a statement that contradicts the public-record statements made by the leaders of the Bhaktivedanta-parivar, it may lack a certain credibility unless you are very careful in how you present your case for your idea of kirtan.

Look vamsidas, you've got your terms confused. Book and paraphernalia sales is called sankirtan, chanting in the temple is called kirtan, and going together out to chant for the karmis is called going out for harinama. That's the time when you grab your harinama chadar and wrap it tight around your neck so you won't get cold.

Fine. But that is NOT what the Bhaktivedanta-parivar leaders have said, under oath, in court. And for what it's worth, here's one link from a prominent kirtaniya in that group, which agrees with those previous court cases calling kirtan and sankirtan synonymous:

http://www.kirtan.org/html/what_is_kirtan.html

My point is that the Bhaktivedanta-parivar leadership made a tactical decision in the late 1970s and early 1980s, in which they publicly equated the two terms in court, and then defined sankirtan primarily as paraphernalia sales. Shastra may not support that definition, but unless Bhaktivedanta-parivar leaders wish to admit that they lied in court, their definition is now a matter of public record, on which court cases were based.

So it could look a little disingenous for a member of the Bhaktivedanta-parivar to say, "Look at us! Now that kirtan is 'cool' again, we want to remind you that we do it too, and we'll even leave out the nasty 'selling' stuff that we previously told the courts was vital to the practice!" I'm sure such an argument could be justified, but I was just urging the original poster here to be careful not to contradict what his tradition has already stated about its version of the practice.

This isn't exactly an announcement which would belong where it was posted, so I am moving it here.

Vamsidas, of course I got the point you were making. I was just cutting a joke out of the way these terms are sometimes used.

Hare Krsna Prabhus,

Bhaktivedanta Viabava? What is this?

I hope it is not from the 80's or late 70's when the movement was really off the path,and somewhat lost(at least authority)

I remember a devotee saying he was going out with his wife on "twisty balloon clown sankirtana" =his job.

Isnt sankirtana meaning congregational chanting like Lord Caitanya's Sankirtana movement? Not as described by someone other than our Sampradaya Acarya?

So i am confused (no surprise) what should i write on Kirtana?

That is a very interesting point, Vamsiji.

In a similar case, the Maharishi wanted to have his technique regarded as a science, so in court his people declared their diksha mantras to be 'meaningless sounds'. In fact they are bij mantras and namah's to one's Ishtadeva, just like the diksha mantras most Hindus receive, and the Maharishi's Guru, a Shankaracharya, used to ask initiates first to identify the Istadeva they felt attraction for, so that he could give the appropriate mantra. Even the Maharishi would preach that one would experience Bhakti 'at a higher level', but this is exactly the reverse of what Hindus have always understood, and is therefore an innovation on his part, with no support from the tradition.

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
even by trying to achieve
a precise legal definition of what we believe!

That's a good one!

Sorry for being pedantic, but if you wish to be a servant of the Gaudiya sampradaya, you could perhaps start by spelling it right in your signature.

Gua is betelnut by the way, as in Guahati, which somehow became Gauhati. But I digress, further and further.

Is there a transcript of that court case available on record anywhere?

The point actually came up in several court cases. Here's one, though it may not be the best example:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-155.ZO.html

Note the assertion that the PRIMARY PURPOSE of sankirtana is "raising funds for the movement." Someone may once have considered that an ingenious strategy for a court battle, but not only did it fail; it left a legacy that I don't believe will serve the movement well at all.

I'm beginning to see the seriousness of your point, Vamsi.

This is indeed a troubling legacy.

how embarrasing

Hare Krsna Prabhus,

I have fixed the problem, i hope. And please correct me when ever i goof up. I am old and tired and not knowledgable in anything except the Protection of Krsna's cows.