Talk:Hare Krishna (mantra)

Pujya Sivananda Maharaj could be mentioned!

Hari Om, It could be included that the Maha Mantra is usualy chanted in reverse order than how it is presented here:

Hare Raama Hare Raama, Raama Raama Hare Hare;
Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna Hare Hare.

Do not think you will have any sources mentioning it? Will you? Wikidās ॐ 21:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Should individual saints be mentioned? and the sequence of the mantra

The mantra is widespread throughout India, and is chanted by Shaivites and Vaishnavites alike, so there is no need to mention individual saints who teach this mantra, or the page would be filled with hundreds of names. It should be mentioned that many Hindus are more familiar with the original sequence of the mantra (HR-HK), which reflects the historical order in which the two avatars appeared. The traditional sequence was altered by the 16th cent. Bengali saint Caitanya Mahaprabhu to reflect his special devotion to Krishna (HK-HR), and this "reformed" sequence is the one that was popularized in the 20th century by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami. The mantra continues to be recited in its original form (HR-HK) in many Hindu devotional communities around the world. In practice the sequence doesn't matter, since when one chants three or more rounds of the mantra, the sequence of the names quickly becomes obscured (HR-HK-HR-HK-HR-HK-HR)

Two spiritual leaders do merit special mention because of their historical impact: Caitanya Mahaprabhu and A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami. Founding a sect (Gaudiya Vaishnavism) whose influence is still widespread 500 years later, Caitanya Mahaprabhu made three historically significant contributions. He (1) elevated Krishna above the other gods in the Hindu pantheon, even above Vishnu himself; (2) altered the sequence of the mantra to reflect this change; and (3) promoted mantra repetition as more important than other traditional spiritual practices such as yajna, puja, and meditation. Equally significant is his lineage descendant, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, who introduced the Gaudiya Vaishnav form of the mantra worldwide in the mid-20th century.

Izmi (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

All the accusations made above are completely false indicating the poor fund of knowledge and information. Anudasa19 (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Devanagari

Hey, the guy told me to put this here. Can somebody please fix this and put it on the article?

हर कृषण हर कृषण

कृषण कृषण हर हर

हर राम हर राम

राम राम हर हर

(This is wrong, but I do not know how to make the proper shape appear. There should be a diagonal mark starting at the right hand top corner of the word हर (hare), and going diagonally upwards, as in the image.) David G Brault 21:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

try Devanagari. It's हरे, कृष्ण, राम. The -ष्ण- will probably render with virama, not as a ligature, in most browsers. The Devanagari is redundant anyway, it is enough to give it in romanization. --dab (𒁳) 08:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Right now the Devanagari still is wrong...what's above the RE of the HARE currently on the page is the "hat" to make it into a long I (shotting towards the right), instead of the line starting at the top of the RE of the HARE and going upwards and to the left (this line makes it an E sound instead of an A sound)...can someone fix this? I don't know how....or it should be taken off, because it's worse to have it up there wrong than to not have it at all.67.180.149.106 (talk) 21:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Unmani Sarasvati 2/10/08

Hi, the mahamantra currently reads 'Raap' instead of 'Raam', I hope someone noticed it? Lilaac (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Iskcon centric article

This article is overly biased towards Iskcon movement. Hare Krishna chanting has been done all over India every day for thousands of years before ISKCON made it famous in the west. I am including a link to a non-ISKCON Hare Krishna Chanting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Rath yatra 17:37, 29 Oct 2007 (UTC).

Disambiguation page

I will look into having a seperate article for ISKCON and a seperate article for the mantra itself. Alternatively, we could just merge the ISKCON parts with the ISKCON wikipedia article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Rath yatra 17:41, 29 Oct 2007 (UTC).

Dear Rath yatra, articles regarding ISKCON and Gaudiya Math already exist elsewhere. This article describes the Hare Krishna mantra specifically. I do not see any purpose in having a disambiguation page. Wikipedia is written in English language for an international audience, and includes details of relevant current and past events. It is significant to note that it became well known on an international basis from the 60's and 70's due to modern Gaudiya movements. If you have any neutral details to add, please discuss them here. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 09:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure,I know how to fix it,this is the way how you write it.हरे कृष्ण हरे कृष्ण कृष्ण कृष्ण हरे हरे हरे राम राम राम हरे हरे —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.40.66 (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

missed a हरे राम in the middle there, 70.176.40.66. No prem for you!Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree

GourangaUK, I also agree with you. I'm just saying that every external link is an ISKCON and Gaudiya Math link. I want to give mention to other traditions. Also, see your talk page regarding linking to youtube. Rath yatra 02:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In addition, i'd also like to add that the Hare Krishna mantra audio link sounds like a professional recording which is fine but it doesn't represent the way its sung by millions of Hindus everyday in India which is something that is lacking in this article. For someone who doesn't know anything about "Hare Krishna", the article would give the wrong impression that Hare Krishn mantra is mainly related to the "Hare Krishna" movement.
Rath yatra 17:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with including a range of relevant links, however I feel the article does present accurate information. Although of historically-distant origins (described within the article) the Hare Krishna mantra became far more well-known throughout India due to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's influence, and the Gaudiya Vaishnava movement that followed. It is also this branch of Vaishnavism which has focused more exclusively on the mantra. Thus I don't believe it is not incorrect to point this (and the influence of the later international movements) out in the article. Regards, Gouranga(UK) 12:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This page needs some objective content

Virtually everything on this page is regarding Hare Krishna as a religion/philosophy and it trys to put Hare Krishna in a purely positive light. However, some other related topics need to be added for objectivity: a) Comments in the past by Hare Krishna leaders that women are less intelligent than men b) Collapse of the Hare Krishna organization in the 80's and 90's in North America

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.100.172 (talk) 06:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this page is primarily about the Hare Krishna mantra and the religious practices associated with it. For political history or comment please refer to the relevant organisations main articles, such as International Society for Krishna Consciousness or Gaudiya Math etc ... Please also note Wikipedia's policies regarding original research and verifiability. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Gouranga is a Hare Krishna name. So, most likely, GourangaUK is a member of the Hare Krishna Movement. So, how is it that he is controlling what goes on in this site? You cannot expect him to be objective. Reading this page, one can see that nothing here is really controversial or has criticism of the Hare Krishna movement. How is it that Wikipedia allows a member of the Hare Krishna Movement control what is put in and not put in this web page?

Wikipedia supposed to be a non-biased website, but I can see that it is not. Therefore, this page is not a true picture of the Hare Krishna Movement. Several people that I know, including myself, have concluded that this page is simply a propaganda page for the Hare Krishna Movement.

If anyone tries to put any controversial material no matter how factual or document it might be, it is immediately removed.

It looks as though the Wikipedia people might be receiving money from the Hare Krishna Movement so they (the Hare Krishna people) can keep this page as they fit.

I would like to informed my friends to form a campaign concerning Wikipedia and its unreliability as far as the Hare Krishna web page is concerned. This page has been corrupted and the Wikipedia people have allowed it to happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George3h (talk • contribs) 23:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear George, with all due respect you are missing the point, and also your comments in regards to myself clearly go against Wikipedia's good faith policy. The point is that this page is primarily about the Hare Krishna mantra and associated practices, and is not primarily about The Hare Krishna movement, which is made up of several organisations, which are listed seperately in Wikipedia (ISKCON, Gaudiya Math, Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mission, Gaudiya Kutir...). Space for criticism of these movements exists on their individual pages, please see the links above. I have replaced the criticism section in the ISKCON article several times after well-meaning members of ISKCON removed it. Have you read the ISKCON article? Your comments in regards to Wikipedia receiving money from the Hare Krishna's in order to favour bias is simply ludicrous. This is page which anyone can edit. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry George3h, but you seem to be grossly misinformed. This article is about the Hare Krishna mantra and associated practises. Krishna consciousness is the most associated practice. ISKCON does not send money to wikipedia, not only because it is interested in people hearing the truth, but also because it is simply impossible in the context of wikipedia to do so. Do you not understand the way in which these articles are written? There is nobody to give money to, apart from maybe you, and by the sound of your comments, you haven't received any ;). Harrifer (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummmm, Harrifer, wikipedia does receive financial contributions from users. In fact, they encourage it. You can find a link at the very bottom of this page as to how to make a tax-deductible donation. Philosopher2king (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)philosopher2king

Contributions don't give people more right to edit things. Information and knowledge give people more right to edit things. George3h is clearly mistaken when he thinks that ISKCON is bribing wikipedia, since it is open sourced. ISKCON is a non profit organisation, and a registered charity, the GBC (organisational leadership) do not take everyone's money, and nobody is getting rich. If you cannot take something as being sincere and innocent, is that not a striking condemnation of the age we live in, instead of those who are trying to change it? Harrifer (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course money does not give anybody the right for more edits, no one is arguing that! I don't understand the tangent you are taking, you did say "Do you not understand the way in which these articles are written? There is nobody to give money to..." and that's wrong. But hey, as long as people know that wikipedia is both democratic AND it can use some monetary help, we're all good. Philosopher2king (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)philosopher2king

Blatant Omissions

This article is overtly biased in favor of the HK movement and not objective. The section Movement states the HK were once considered a cult but goes on to disprove that claim by citing a link that does not exist. There is also no mention of the abuses and several murders committed in the US by members of the church, one of which was engineered by swami Bhaktipada, a church leader. One of the reasons why the movement has lost a lot of steam and is almost non-existent these days. Here is a link to the story, I'll work it into the article next week but if someone wants to edit it, please feel free to do so.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEEDA1530F934A25755C0A961948260

Philosopher2king (talk) 22:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)philosopher2king 6/8/08

It is an important observation. However one should not that Swami Bhaktipada (Kirtanananda Swami) was not a member of the movement you refer to and was kicked out because of this and other problems. This is all important for ISKCON article.

Now this article is about Hare Krishna mantra and all problems discussed are in relevant pages of various sects or organisations that form part of the larger movement. Its important to mention that what you refer is an allegation and the link should be checked, but must refer to the page of [Kirtanananda Swami]] where a lot of works needs to be done or look at ISKCON page? This article has nothing to do with it. Wikidās ॐ 23:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As Wikidas states, this was not something done by ISKCON, but by an action by an individual who was unconnected. There were some abuses in some institutions, but these were clearly and concisely dealt with. Abuse of any sort is not something condoned by ISKCON, and the welfare of women and children is considered paramount. Despite the fact that such abuses may happen in these sort of environments, they are CERTAINLY not condoned, or left alone.

ISKCON is not, and has never been a cult. Look at the life of Prabhupada, he lived more simply than most of his disciples. Srila Prabhupada also said on several occasions that if people wanted to attend the temple but not contribute time or money, that this was acceptable. I suggest you read up on what a cult is and what ISKCON is. I can understand that something so unusual may be misunderstood, so I don't blame you for your interpretation, but you must know that we do not give all our worldly possessions, and mass suicides are actively discouraged. Harrifer (talk) 12:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, I agree to an extent but this article reads in overly positive tones about "the movement" and even goes into a discussion into why it is not a cult. Again, what you say makes sense, but then the article should be edited to include only theological and historical material and not get into discussions as to why it is not a cult because there is more material to the contrary. As it is right now, it sounds apologetic and not as an unbiased article.

Harrifer, I have nothing but respect for you and your right to a belief system. Surely a spiritual path followed with reason and ethics can provide one with immeasurable blessings. However, religion is done by people and people are flawed. The HK movement, at least in the US has suffered from that (a religion is not a cult by itself, it is always the way it is organized that makes it a cult or not). I am not saying ISKON as a whole condones anything improper but part of the leadership, and do bare in mind that swami Bhaktipada was not "unconnected" but the leader of the largest HK community at that time, and he approved a killing. Philosopher2king (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)philosopher2king

I do not want to go into details, some of what you have said does not have relevance, or is against the policies, but if you do have relevant sources Im sure you can deal with it on appropriate pages and if you need help I can do that. I will take this discussion as a consensus that the section on cult/no cult to be removed and edited to include only theological and historical material as relevant to this article. Wikidās ॐ 14:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, wikidas. Religious affiliations aside, wikipedia is about objective content. Philosopher2king (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)philosopher2king

Objective content should have a proper place and sources. There are limitations on how allegations can influence information about living people. I guess you need some academic or otherwise reliable research to back up your claims. What do you think? You definitions of the cult are also not very developed. Wikidās ॐ 15:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikidas, I don't understand your point. My concern is simple and straightforward: if this article is about the Hare Krishna as a religion, then the content should refrain from defending the reasons of why it is not, or hasn't ever been, a cult. In other words, don't touch the topic if you are not willing to give equal time to both sides of the issue. Read the Protestantism or Catholicism articles and see how the topic is not even included. I can't make it any clearer than that. I see that the "cult" material is gone (I didn't change it) so I won't push the issue anymore, but the way the article had it was a straw man and not even a good one at that. Philosopher2king (talk) 05:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)philosopher2king

If you want to find an article on Krishna Consciousness, I suggest you consult the ISKCON and Gaudiya Vaisnavism articles. Harrifer (talk) 13:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture

Praphus, In the popular culture, The song "Bow Down, Mister" by Boy George should be include. It is cited on the Wikipedia article about Boy George [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_George. This was a successful release.

He also covered "My Sweet Lord".

Also In the hymn Vishnu Sahasranama spoken by Bhishma in praise of Krishna after the Kurukshetra war, he is also called Rama.[5]

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

Tony —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonstarr (talk • contribs) 19:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Seems the article is the subject to some vandalism. I think we should remove this line:

Krishna and Rama refer to God himself, meaning "He who is All american-Attractive"

Dunno if I should92.8.140.197 (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

the boy and the lion

My grandson 8 years old just died and he had told me of s story about a boy and a lion. It was something he had heard at the temple. Does any one know of this story. I'm not a devotee. Please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.166.0.189 (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hare Krishna, The story to which you refer is most likely that of Narasimha, the half-man, half-lion avatar. Sorry to hear about your grandson. Jonchapple (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

give peace a chance

Hare Krishna is mentioned by John Lennon and the plastic ONO band in the hit 1969 song, give peace a chance. they referenced it in the bed-in, also.

Tone of section "Hare Krishna"

The tone is not neutral, even though the actual content might be fairly accurate: "most genuinely Hindu", "most famous", "the story of his heroism". Referring to Philosopher2king's and Wikidās'es discussion above, this article actually is some little about ISKCON, and then it is very important to make the formulations sound neutral and encyclopedic so that proponents, contrahents and neutral thirders can use the article all alike. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 15:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Moves

please stop moving this article without discussion. "Hare Krishna" is first and foremost the name (and half of text) of the mantra discussed here. See the hatnote for other uses. --dab (𒁳) 15:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Rename suggested

I have a problem with the current name for the article, because it appears to be misleading to the general audience. When people look up "Hare Krishna" on Wiki, they are most likely expecting to read an article on the Hare Krishna movement, or ISKCON, because ISKCON is almost universally colloquially referred to as "Hare Krishna" and not so much by the acronym. I have just had a first-hand experience of this ambiguity having to pipe to ISKCON numerous references to the Hare Krishna temple in Mantra-Rock Dance and a handful of related articles, including scurrying with a last-minute correction in the DYK set for the Main page.

I suggest that we improve the article by renaming it to "Hare Krishna mantra" with "Hare Krishna chant" as a synonym, while "Hare Krishna" has to be linked to "ISKCON". This will be much more straight-forward and user-friendly and will spare most of the readers the cumbersome trouble of having to read and follow relinks in the hat-note to get to what they are most likely looking for by "Hare Krishna" - ISKCON. And, yes, MUCH less pipes. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You certainly have a point, and I have no problem with the rename. I suggest that Hare Krishna should then become a disambiguation page, not a redirect. --dab (𒁳) 07:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Dbachmann. May I ask you to elucidate on how exactly linking Hare Krishna to a disambiguation page instead of an actual article will take care of the excessive piping and inconvenient searches? Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

For lack of arguments to the contrary, I went ahead and renamed the page. Please let me know what you think. Cinosaur (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Added DAP. Cinosaur (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reordered the entries on this page to reflect a regular user's expectation, because by "Hare Krishna", people are more likely to be looking for information about the Hare Krishna movement rather than for the literal meanings of the words in the mantra. Zeggi (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Central focus of the article

Zeggi wants to treat the "Hare Krishna" page as a page about the so-called Hare Krishna movement rather than what it actually is, a traditional mantra thousands of years old. The purpose of WIkipedia is to educate readers, not to cater to their expectations. The article on Hare Krishna should present the phrase for what it is: "a mantra, or set of words used as a sacred phrase." The article should then contain sub-sections that discuss the history of the mantra, and various religious traditions, both ancient and modern, for whom this sacred phrase has special significance. One of these movements happens to be the "Hare Krishna" movement, so called because it promotes the repetition of the HK mantra. The phrase itself does *not* refer to this movement. The phrase is thousands of years old, and the Wikipedia article *must* be organized to reflect that fact. Just because the word "How" is now being used as the brand-name for a kind of yogurt does not mean that Wikipedia should make yogurt the main focus of an article on the word "How".Izmi (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Foreign language paragraph

I found the following inserted after the 1st paragraph by Sdebbad:

ceto-darpaṇa-mārjanaḿ bhava-mahā-dāvāgni-nirvāpaṇaḿ śreyaḥ-kairava-candrikā-vitaraṇaḿ vidyā-vadhū-jīvanam ānandāmbudhi-vardhanaḿ prati-padaḿ pūrṇāmṛtāsvādanaḿ sarvātma-snapanaḿ paraḿ vijayate śrī-kṛṣṇa-sańkīrtanam

Not being familiar with the language, I gave it the benefit of the doubt, and didn't revert it as vandalism. Even if it is valuable to the article, though, I think it belongs here until someone can translate it. Any clues, Sdebbad? Lusanaherandraton (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a Caitanya quote encouraging sankirtan. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siksastaka#Text. Still might be out of place.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary/irrelevant images

I suggest to resize (arounf 170px) some images (specially the Hare Krishna- mantra image). --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 13:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Three modes of mantra: bhajan, kirtan, japa

Since this page appears to be protected I will bring this up here. Where it says "The mantra is repeated, either out loud (kirtan), softly to oneself (japa), or internally within the mind." is incorrect. The three modes of chanting are: sung aloud (bhajan), sung in call-and-response or congregationally (kirtan), or chanted to oneself aloud or silently (japa). This isn't even a contention as the link for kirtan even says: call-and-response. This is common knowledge, but easy enough to find a reference if anyone insists. Who do we have to talk to for this correction to go through?Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why I couldn't edit this page earlier, but I've made the change.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hare Krishna (mantra). 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/20080511193912/http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/kalisantarana.html to http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/kalisantarana.html

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) 05:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Devanagari wrong rendering

The Krishna (कृष्ण) part has been incorrectly rendered in the image. Kindly correct it. Incorrect rendering: कृष्‌ण Correct rendering: कृष्ण Polytope4D (talk) 03:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Saying that ISKCON changed the Hare Krishna Mantra to put Krishna first.

This is a blatant lie or misunderstanding from someone who does not have enough knowledge of these things. The Gaudiya Matha which is where ISKCON spun off from also chants it with Krishna's names first, and this is in fact how ALL Gaudiya Vaisnava Parivars chant it(some Asampradaya groups chant some other ways, and there is one I know of that does Rama first as well in Puri, but the Gaudiya Vaisnava community considers them to be Asmapradaya, not of our sect). Sri Gauranga Mahaprabu taught the chanting of it as well as "Hare Krishna Hare Krishna" first instead of "Hare Rama Hare Rama". I am follow the traditional Gaudiya Vaisnava ways, and am in a parivar, and to try and erase our history and say we did nothing and all our existence(which we are what spawned Gaudiya Matha, which spawned ISKCON) because they haven't read enough. Shame on them. Please research more before editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrivikramaDas108 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Added Things

Added Trisha Paytas' Controversy with Hare Krishna — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegoodguyas (talk • contribs) 19:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it as it was unreferenced and it seems quite trivial. It is not mentioned in the article about Trisha Paytas. I don't follow Paytas closely but I am aware that, intentionally or otherwise, they are something of a drama magnet. We don't need to cover minor items of internet "controversy" such as this. If it gets some significant coverage in reliable sources then we can reconsider, but even then it would probably belong in their article, not this one. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I had to look who that was up, why even mention such a person? This is about the MAHA MANTRA, not some ISCKON temple that this person visited and filmed themselves in. Searching their name and "Hare Krishna" shows a video where they don't even know how to pronounce the Bhagavad Gita, or what Krishna's name is when they show a deity of him they bought. This person doesn't have membership in ISKCON, nor do they have seemed to develop any knowledge of the philosophy. Someone trying to grab fame by manufacturing controversy is useless and shouldn't be even on ISKCON's page. That's where it WOULD belong, if it belonged anywhere, but it doesn't truly. TrivikramaDas108 (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)