Posts by granitebadger23

mistygull16 said:Can someone help me out with a question? I already pitched this to some former ISKCON folks and was pretty happy with what they said—so, thanks to them for the insight. But now, I’m really looking to hear from a Vaishnav who isn't tied to the ISKCON scene. How is a Guru actually "determined" in those circles? Like, if a Monist wants to become a Guru, they'd need to have experienced Nirvikalpa samadhi, right? So, what kind of experience would a Guru under Babaj need to have? And if anyone wants to dive into how those experiences differ or overlap, go for it. Honestly, hearing more from the old ISKCON crowd wouldn't hurt either, but I'm mostly just curious about the general Vaishnav perspective.

I think the following passage makes it pretty clear what kind of realization a Gaudiya Vaishnava Guru needs to lead disciples. It's from Sri Binod Babajija's book, "Obstacle on the path of bhakti."

"In our sadhana, we serve Sri Gurudev during our practice, and once we reach siddha-svarup (realizing our spiritual body), the sadhaka body—our current physical one—might disappear, but our service to the guru continues. Even while participating in the eternal pastimes of the Divine couple, we continue serving the guru. Gurudev doesn't just lead us to our Ishtadev; we are actually engaged in eternal pastimes alongside him. When meditating on our siddha-deha (spiritual body), we should be actively involved in serving both the gurus and the Divine couple under their guidance."

So, a Guru is essentially someone who, in their spiritual body, directly serves Radha and Krishna.

Megan Hughes71 said:ISKCON doesn't actually have a lineage, which means there is no Guru Parampara. The spiritual teachers in ISKCON are just a collection of Gurus and holy souls from various eras. Siddh Pranali isn't something everyone is required to have, but if you're looking to deepen your spiritual life within Gaudiya Vaishnavism, then following a Siddh Pranali—which isn't technically initiation—is essential.

Just wait until some ISKCON devotee reads this; then you'll see your precious God.🙂 😁😁😁

bluemason3 said:Actually, he does, because he said it himself. He called Radhakund Babajija a fraud and a bunch of other things globally. I doubt Lovica is the issue here; I'd say these are just sincere beliefs. They're exclusive and wrong, sure, but they're sincere. 😁

As for the ritvik dilemma... it's true they functioned as ritviks during SP's lifetime. But from what I've noticed, it’s actually pretty common among Vaishnavas for a student not to accept disciples personally while their own Guru is still alive and active. However, once they pass away... it becomes very difficult to know what SP intended or who was following whom. Especially since the group I started the ritvik controversy with stopped showing me much trust once I saw how they actually operate. I just don't know.

Money definitely wasn't why he preached like that. It's about conviction, which wouldn't even be a problem if it weren't built on total misinformation (which is incredibly easy to prove given the solid historical record). By denying the Babajis from Radhakunda and their process, you're basically erasing your own lineage. I mean, what happens to all the acharyas in that line who followed the Siddh Pranali process and were Babajis—starting all the way back with Bhaktivinod Thakur?

Andrew Sanchez572 said:😂
But what if someone is just a child when it comes to infidelity?
And really, how do we even define adultery in this day and age?
Honestly, it all feels like questions born from some outdated, rigid moral code...
What does it even mean to be a prostitute?
Even a woman who is married but doesn't have a job could arguably be labeled that way under certain definitions.
Anyway, I think I see where you're coming from (though you might have missed my point entirely), so let's avoid drifting too far off-topic. There is already a dedicated thread about women and spirituality, so perhaps we should move this discussion over there...

Isn't a robber just someone trying to feed themselves and their family? 😂🤣

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Alright, thanks for the heads-up.
I’m still a bit skeptical about this whole karma thing, but I'll take your word for it...
(And I really won't even get started on comparing a prostitute to a mother practicing self-denial)

Since when are an adulterer (I was talking about the children of adulterers) and a single mother the same thing? 🤷

Also, don't forget we're talking about a different era entirely. Back then, family ties were much stronger and you couldn't just blow off a marriage like people do today. Families used to be massive, whereas now they're tiny. It used to be kids, moms, dads, siblings, grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, uncles... everyone lived together. 🙂

There's no shortage of room when the house is full.😁

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Yes, I was actually thinking about Yaduran 🙂

It’s not that I perceive Vaishnavism as being patriarchal, at least not within those very high, elevated circles...
But in the actual, day-to-day reality of life, things tend to lean that way.
The second thing to consider is that it doesn't necessarily have to be this way; it is simply how certain people choose to interpret it.
That is precisely why I chose to remain with Bhakti Yogi for such a long duration...

And honestly, what is so wrong with someone being born to a prostitute or an unmarried woman? I mean, sure, it might not have been an ideal childhood, but that says absolutely nothing about the true character of the individual.

She went to see Narayana Maharaja and now she goes by Syamarani, which I guess pretty much seals her fate regarding ever becoming a guru in New York City during this "kalpa."

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Yes, I was actually thinking about Yaduran 🙂

It’s not that I perceive Vaishnavism as being patriarchal, at least not within those very high, elevated circles...
But in the actual, day-to-day reality of life, things tend to lean that way.
The second thing to consider is that it doesn't necessarily have to be this way; it is simply how certain people choose to interpret it.
That is precisely why I chose to remain with Bhakti Yogi for such a long duration...

And honestly, what is so wrong with someone being born to a prostitute or an unmarried woman? I mean, sure, it might not have been an ideal childhood, but that says absolutely nothing about the true character of the individual.

It’s not like everything is patriarchal all the time in daily life. Sure, New York City and The Salvation Army are extremely patriarchal organizations, but I guess they only represent a tiny fraction of the Gaudiya Vaishnava community. The real issue is that you just don't see representatives from the other groups out here in the West—or if you do, there are hardly any.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Yes, I was actually thinking about Yaduran 🙂

It’s not that I perceive Vaishnavism as being patriarchal, at least not within those very high, elevated circles...
But in the actual, day-to-day reality of life, things tend to lean that way.
The second thing to consider is that it doesn't necessarily have to be this way; it is simply how certain people choose to interpret it.
That is precisely why I chose to remain with Bhakti Yogi for such a long duration...

And honestly, what is so wrong with someone being born to a prostitute or an unmarried woman? I mean, sure, it might not have been an ideal childhood, but that says absolutely nothing about the true character of the individual.

Regarding an individual's karma: I guess what Krishna is actually saying in that verse is that neither the bad karma from past lives nor the mess we're making right now can stop us from taking refuge in Him and reaching the ultimate destination. Maybe it's not as big of a hurdle as people think.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:It feels even more awkward being singled out for something you are fundamentally opposed to...
And besides, we are all human beings, after all, so these kinds of misunderstandings are bound to happen from time to time. We aren't exactly typewriters, are we?...

I wasn't actually thinking of her, but rather a disciple of SP, though the name escapes me at the moment. She was encouraged for years to take that position, but she declined. I don't know the full story, so I can't go into much detail...

I am not suggesting there is a direct link, but SP quotes him quite often, as do many prabhus whenever it serves their purposes...
And please, don't try to argue that there isn't sexism in the Vedas or even a hint of patriarchy within Vaishnavism, because if you go down that road, you will certainly have to provide a very detailed defense...😛

She’s an SP student and actually the first woman ever nominated for a guru position within ISKCON. As for the other woman, maybe you're thinking of the former Yaduran?

Andrew Sanchez572 said:It feels even more awkward being singled out for something you are fundamentally opposed to...
And besides, we are all human beings, after all, so these kinds of misunderstandings are bound to happen from time to time. We aren't exactly typewriters, are we?...

I wasn't actually thinking of her, but rather a disciple of SP, though the name escapes me at the moment. She was encouraged for years to take that position, but she declined. I don't know the full story, so I can't go into much detail...

I am not suggesting there is a direct link, but SP quotes him quite often, as do many prabhus whenever it serves their purposes...
And please, don't try to argue that there isn't sexism in the Vedas or even a hint of patriarchy within Vaishnavism, because if you go down that road, you will certainly have to provide a very detailed defense...😛

Sure, sexism pops up in some texts, but I don't think it actually comes from spirituality itself. It’s more like the biases held by certain scholars back then. In the verses of The Bhagavad Gita, you don't really see it, even though if I remember correctly, there's this one verse in "The Bhagavad Gita As It Is" that's translated like this: "O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth—women, merchants and workers—can attain the supreme destination." According to that translation, it implies all those groups are "lower birth," which is—forgive my language—just stupid. Actually, you can translate it quite differently, and it makes way more sense: "those born of sinful women." Basically, children of prostitutes or people involved in adultery. Merchants are mentioned because they're known for cheating in business, and workers because of things like drinking or gambling. As far as I know, Narayana Maharaja translates that verse that way in his version of The Bhagavad Gita, unlike SP's translation.

When it comes to Vaishnavism in general, I completely agree that patriarchy is everywhere. But with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the whole situation changes. You have Mother Saci, Visnupriye, and Laxmipriye, followed by Jahnava Devi, who was a true leader for Vaishnavas. Even within the philosophy itself, the Gopis—led by Radha—hold the most important place in Gaudiya devotion. All the Goswamis are just minor players in their pastimes. There really isn't any room for patriarchy here, I guess.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Not only was the tone impolite and condescending (sexism, or whatever you want to call it 🤔), but I was also accused of defending sexist behavior, which, if I'm being honest, is even more insulting to me.

I believe there is even a female guru in ISKCON, if I recall correctly...
the notion that women are less intelligent comes from people like the Scholar and such...
The Vedas can be interpreted in many different ways...

I get where you're coming from. It’s just that people find it uncomfortable to read when things turn into a personal shouting match.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Not only was the tone impolite and condescending (sexism, or whatever you want to call it 🤔), but I was also accused of defending sexist behavior, which, if I'm being honest, is even more insulting to me.

I believe there is even a female guru in ISKCON, if I recall correctly...
the notion that women are less intelligent comes from people like the Scholar and such...
The Vedas can be interpreted in many different ways...

You mean Urmil devi dasi. As far as I know, she was nominated back in 2003 to potentially become a guru. Maybe she finally stepped into that role a few years ago, but man, it took forever for a woman to finally become a guru. If we're talking strictly about New York City, that's over 30 years. If you look at the bigger picture (like The Salvation Army), then we're looking at something like 90 years.

Regarding Scholar, what does he even have to do with Gaudiya Vaishnavism, or even Vaishnavism in general? He was a royal advisor known for his wise sayings (though some weren't all that wise, I guess). In other words, it would be like me taking quotes from some ancient Greek philosopher today and presenting them as Gaudiya Vaishnava teaching. For us Gaudiya Vaishnavas, the foundation is primarily the teachings of the Goswami, not some philosopher from the 3rd century B.C.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:So, apparently, exclusive rights to uttama adikaryu are reserved solely for members of Indian lineages, for instance,

And yet, here we are, seeing everyone dancing side-by-side at the temple and during the Sunday feasts.

But I’m not making any excuses for anyone; sexism remains a massive, pervasive issue.
I think I touched upon all of this when I previously wrote about having a "hard heart."
Though, I suppose I could start listing things now too—sexism, and all that other stuff...

Honestly, is there any "spiritual following" out there that isn't plagued by sexism?

Why on earth would you assume sexism has to be everywhere? I guess my own lineage includes ten female gurus and a few men. A Vaishnava shouldn't be making distinctions based on physical bodies, I suppose.

Innocent said:I'm not even part of ISKCON, nor am I defending anyone🙄
it's unbelievable
if anyone supported similar views, it was you.

Why all the fighting?

The way you spoke to him wasn't polite, but he does have a point when he claims women are categorized as less intelligent or as fallen (candala). Just look at the evidence—how many female gurus are there in ISKCON or the Theosophical Society?

It’s also interesting that this isn't the case with other Vaishnavism traditions, which have many women in their lineage who served as gurus. The idea that women are less intelligent doesn't come from Krishna. In fact, in the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says He is intelligence among women. So, how could women be less intelligent?

boldsailor2 said:.. those specific lines—they honestly make me twitch a little bit... 😁

.. and man, Bore—he’s got more ego than Bruca Leo 🤣

Basically, someone was clearly desperate to keep the whole group together while spreading that kind of propaganda... I don't think SP had much to do with it—it feels totally taken out of context...

Are you really sure it was taken out of context? Here is a conversation with the students...

Prabhupada: Then everything will be finished. Preaching will be finished. In this sahajiya party, then preaching will be finished. Siddha-pranali.
Tamala krsni: What does that mean, Srila Prabhupada, siddha-pranali?
Prabhupada: Siddha-pranali is nonsense. They have manufactured a siddha-pranali.
Ramesvara: [break] ...the initiation that you are given your siddhas, your eternal position.
Tamala krsni: There are some very strange notes. You should see those notes.
Ramesvara: Yes, I’ve read them all already.
Tamala krsni: You did?
Prabhupad They have learned IT fra Thes Radha-kunda babajis
Tamala krsni: From Radha-kunda babajis?
Prabhupada: Babajis, yes. After all, they’re fool, rascals, so whatever they say.

First off, calling the siddha-pranali process garbage and a fabrication makes zero sense to me. The six Goswamis, the followers of Caitany Mahaprabhu, maintained this process through a direct lineage right down to Bhaktisiddhant Saraswati. Gaura Kisora Das Babaj, Jagannatha Das Babaj, Bhaktivinoda Thakura, Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura, Narottama Das Thakura... they all followed this process. So, I'm not sure why it's being labeled as fake. Even today, there are lineages directly linked—not just by shiksha, but by diksha—to the people I just listed. And now, the babajis from Radhakund, who actually follow a tradition older than ISKCON or even Gaudiy Math, are being called fools and rascals.

I'm not getting into why SP said what he said, nor do I want to retaliate against ISKCON in the same way. My point is simply that some things were preached that aren't correct or accurate, and you can't just blame everything on the disciples after SP passed away.

boldsailor2 said:How does this go?--

tad vidhi pranipatena pariprasnena sevasya
upadeksyanti te jnyanam ......

Just try to find the truth by approaching a spiritual teacher. Be humble, ask questions, and serve them. Realized souls can pass that knowledge on to you—because they've actually seen the truth for themselves.
(Bhagavad Gita)

So the real criterion is self-realization, not just some intermediate level...

That’s the ideal scenario, I guess. Without those kinds of gurus available, you don't really have much of a choice. You either have to be your own guru, or you accept someone who isn't fully self-realized but is at least further along than you are. Or, like you said, maybe someone puts in more effort and travels to major spiritual hubs where there's a better shot at finding a self-realized guru than, say, in Cleveland (though even Cleveland might not be totally ruled out) 😍

boldsailor2 said:Look, I’m talking about ritviks—if you even know what I’m getting at here 😉. There’s a huge difference between a real Guru and someone just filling in because there isn't anyone else better to step up 😉. ... SP established the ritvik system because he felt backed into a corner, and honestly, nobody ever bothered to tell us the truth back then... which basically means the parampara is broken...

But really, what are we even debating? If someone is actually serious about this, they’re going to head straight to Radhakund to find an authentic Vaishnav, rather than wasting their time—with all due respect—messing around with trained Westerners who are just playing dress-up with exotic traditions...

And look... Prabhu... SP wanted us to stay within ISKCON, not go wandering off somewhere else.😁

With all due respect, wasn't it said that those babajis ruined everything by following a made-up process?🤷😛

boldsailor2 said:Look, I’m talking about ritviks—if you even know what I’m getting at here 😉. There’s a huge difference between a real Guru and someone just filling in because there isn't anyone else better to step up 😉. ... SP established the ritvik system because he felt backed into a corner, and honestly, nobody ever bothered to tell us the truth back then... which basically means the parampara is broken...

But really, what are we even debating? If someone is actually serious about this, they’re going to head straight to Radhakund to find an authentic Vaishnav, rather than wasting their time—with all due respect—messing around with trained Westerners who are just playing dress-up with exotic traditions...

I get what you're saying, but just because a specific lineage might lack a top-tier guru at some point doesn't mean the connection is broken. So, even if we assume they are ritvik gurus, I guess the lineage still exists.

The scriptures and the Vaishnav acaryas suggest that a guru should ideally be someone who has reached the uttama level. If that’s not possible, they’ll choose someone at the madhyame level to ensure the lineage survives. If even then there's no one, they go with the kanisthe level. But I guess I agree with you—it might actually be better to accept a guru who is at the beginner level.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Honestly, I don't take anything in this life too seriously—at least nothing coming from the outside world—even though I used to be so deeply immersed in all of it. I’d like to think my ego didn't get the better of me during that time, at least... that's how I perceive it 😬. My only genuine regret is that I happened to meet my spiritual teacher right in the middle of all that chaos, which meant our relationship was somewhat shaped by those specific circumstances
. But then again, I have seen and learned enough to remain steadfast even after hitting rock bottom
. I simply cannot imagine accepting any other guru
.

It isn't something you imagine—it just happens.😂🤣😁

boldsailor2 said:By the way—if spiritual growth was just about mental gymnastics, everyone would’ve reached enlightenment by now (myself included, back when I was stuck in that phase) 😁

I still have all those arguments, the terminology, and the verses memorized... but honestly, what's the point? It’s almost funny seeing some of these replies here that just wander around aimlessly—like they're chasing their own tails. Maybe it sounds deep to someone hearing these concepts for the first time, but for us "old-timers" 🤣, it's obvious there isn't any other way to look at it... everything has already been said, and exactly in this order

First off, I really don't agree with the idea that the lineage in ISKCON has been broken. A lineage doesn't just vanish just because the founder isn't around anymore. By that logic, the Madhva lineage or the Ramanuja lineage wouldn't exist either. Even if we assume—and I'm assuming this is what you meant—that they lack a top-tier guru right now, that doesn't mean they won't have one in a few years or so.

Regarding the arguments being used, I wouldn't say they're completely nonsensical. Most of it holds up, even if not everything does.

If you don't mind me asking, which spiritual path are you following these days?

mistygull16 said:Look, with all due respect to the Gaudiya matha, I felt it was pretty wrong when I was reading that one book—I can't recall the exact title, maybe something like *Nectar of the Name* or whatever—where it claimed that when an Advaita follower chants Krishna's Name, they're basically driving poisoned arrows into His holy body. That part just sat really poorly with me. It sounded pretty ugly.

It’s ugly, and I guess it's also completely wrong.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:No, I certainly don't hold the process itself accountable for the fact that some people simply possess such hardened hearts.
I have encountered similar types of individuals in other circles as well.
And it isn't as if my own heart has grown callous from practicing bhakti yoga... it just strikes me as quite peculiar that certain people remain so resistant even after ten or twenty years of dedicated practice.
What is it they actually do with their lives, I wonder?

I simply made the decision to distance myself from those kinds of people.

And in doing so, I happened to gain some rather profound insights into my own nature.

That’s exactly why I argued that everyone needs to take a hard look at themselves—are they actually practicing Bhakti, or just following whatever someone else convinced them was Bhakti?

The whole point of practicing Bhakti is that your heart naturally softens; it shouldn't get harder. So, if someone's heart isn't softening, or if they aren't developing a real taste for it, then they clearly aren't practicing properly, or maybe they're just constantly being offensive, which prevents any real progress.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:I wasn’t actually disappointed with the process itself; rather, I found myself frustrated by the internal politics involved, and I say that with complete sincerity.
By the way, I find it quite peculiar that individuals who claim to be so deeply committed to bhakti and devotion can simultaneously develop such profound alienation and a lack of empathy... one has to wonder, what kind of anartha is that?

Following those reflections, I realized that I am much more drawn to different methods and various ways of approaching the divine (if we are to call it that), and so it goes.

That's exactly my point. These people followed a path that ultimately just hardened their hearts. Once you see where that road leads, it makes sense that you'd switch to a different approach and method like you have now.

But look, the methods themselves aren't the issue; it's the approach that's completely wrong. Chanting the Holy Name is considered the most powerful way to achieve realization in Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and I guess it actually is—provided it's done correctly and under proper guidance. Without that, the exact same practice can turn someone cold, which then makes everyone else think the method itself is flawed.

I want to steer this thread back toward a more serious conversation. Personally, I think it’s a major red flag when people like you, who are still actively pursuing spiritual paths, end up feeling disillusioned with the whole bhakti process. I won't get into a long lecture on why these situations happen, but I guess you can judge how much someone is actually practicing bhakti by their level of genuine connection to Krishna and the practice itself.

For instance, it really shouldn't be the case that someone chants mantras for years and still struggles to find any rhythm or flow. If that's happening to you, maybe you should seriously question what you're actually doing—is this truly the bhakti described in the scriptures, or just some version of it that others have convinced you is real?