Andrew Sanchez572 said:I have truly never encountered devotees quite like this before 😢 It seems there are certain individuals who simply lack any sense of social grace or effective communication skills, though I suppose those are just outliers, and you can find them in just about any corner of the country.
I might agree that's mostly how it works today, but maybe ten or fifteen years ago, only a handful actually knew how to communicate. The rest were just waiting for a chance to roast someone or, if you want to put it bluntly, really get under their skin.😉
Back then, people called it "Hard Knock Life" or "healthy roasting."🙂🙂🙂🙂 😂
Every now and then, Prabhupada throws out terms like "scoundrels," "fools," or even worse when talking about Vaishnavas who aren't part of ISKCON. I mean, look at how he calls certain groups "black snakes," labels others as "babajis" or fools, or dismisses the practices of other Vaishnavas and monists as totally made up and idiotic. He’s said just about everything you can say about people like Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Gandhi, and Aurobindo—basically calling them all scoundrels directly.
On one hand, Prabhupada worked incredibly hard to spread Vaishnavism and wrote an enormous amount of books, which is why I really respect him. But on the other hand, he basically provoked followers of almost every other spiritual path by using those insults, which is something I just can't stomach.
darkmason4 said:I actually tracked down this quote in the Vedabase myself. From what I can gather looking at the broader context (correct me if I'm off base here), Prabhupada isn't calling the members of the Ramakrishna Mission "rascals"—he's making a general point about the concept of philanthropy and those who champion it.
Even without using harsher language, I definitely agree that such labeling would offend many people and cast serious doubt on the enlightenment of anyone who would say something like that.
God works in mysterious ways... personally, I wouldn't say that particular style is the gold standard, but the fact remains that SP was uniquely empowered to lead the global success of ISKCON. It wasn't by accident that he was the one chosen. On the other hand, he represents a very strict and isolated branch of the Vaishnava tradition that goes back generations. That specific lineage is the one that spread across the globe. His teacher was even more uncompromising. If I've learned anything so far, it's that people from this lineage's student heritage were determined to maintain total separation from everyone else at any cost. That explains those "isolationist" attitudes. Usually, I find it charming when SP uses the word "rascal" (even when he's talking about me!), but in this specific instance, it really doesn't sit right with me.
"Anyone who has no trace of Krishna consciousness, he is a rascal. There is our challenge. (indistinct) He may be great philosopher, religionist—he is a rascal, degree only. Cent percent rascal, or maybe ninety percent rascal, or seventy percent rascal, but they’re all rascals. The same example: stool, this side and that side. Because the upside of stool is dried up, you cannot say, “It is very nice.” And they’re all stool. Anyone who is not Krishna conscious, who does not know the science of Krishna, he’s useless." (Philosophy Discussions with Syamasundara dasa)
It sounds pretty fanatical, but I think you could easily swap the word Krishna for God here. Prabhupada used Krishna as a synonym for God so frequently that he even used it when debating Christian theologians. He just got used to it. If we replaced "Krishna" with "God" in this passage, everything makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
Besides, didn't SP arrive in the USA in '65 right in the middle of the ultimate "rascal" crowd, preaching with love to people who were burning their brains out on LSD and sex? He didn't reject a single soul.
I wasn't even trying to bring up the tougher examples. But if you search "rascal" in Vedabase under lessons, lectures, conversations, or letters, you'll find those harder instances.
darkmason4 said:I actually tracked down this quote in the Vedabase myself. From what I can gather looking at the broader context (correct me if I'm off base here), Prabhupada isn't calling the members of the Ramakrishna Mission "rascals"—he's making a general point about the concept of philanthropy and those who champion it.
Even without using harsher language, I definitely agree that such labeling would offend many people and cast serious doubt on the enlightenment of anyone who would say something like that.
God works in mysterious ways... personally, I wouldn't say that particular style is the gold standard, but the fact remains that SP was uniquely empowered to lead the global success of ISKCON. It wasn't by accident that he was the one chosen. On the other hand, he represents a very strict and isolated branch of the Vaishnava tradition that goes back generations. That specific lineage is the one that spread across the globe. His teacher was even more uncompromising. If I've learned anything so far, it's that people from this lineage's student heritage were determined to maintain total separation from everyone else at any cost. That explains those "isolationist" attitudes. Usually, I find it charming when SP uses the word "rascal" (even when he's talking about me!), but in this specific instance, it really doesn't sit right with me.
"Anyone who has no trace of Krishna consciousness, he is a rascal. There is our challenge. (indistinct) He may be great philosopher, religionist—he is a rascal, degree only. Cent percent rascal, or maybe ninety percent rascal, or seventy percent rascal, but they’re all rascals. The same example: stool, this side and that side. Because the upside of stool is dried up, you cannot say, “It is very nice.” And they’re all stool. Anyone who is not Krishna conscious, who does not know the science of Krishna, he’s useless." (Philosophy Discussions with Syamasundara dasa)
It sounds pretty fanatical, but I think you could easily swap the word Krishna for God here. Prabhupada used Krishna as a synonym for God so frequently that he even used it when debating Christian theologians. He just got used to it. If we replaced "Krishna" with "God" in this passage, everything makes perfect sense, doesn't it?
Besides, didn't SP arrive in the USA in '65 right in the middle of the ultimate "rascal" crowd, preaching with love to people who were burning their brains out on LSD and sex? He didn't reject a single soul.
I'm actually pretty sure Prabhupada meant God there. Even so, I still don't like hearing someone called a rascal just because they don't believe in God, or because they're a scientist, or because they don't believe in a personal aspect of God. I guess I'd much rather see more positivity when addressing people with different views.
Andrew Sanchez572 said:Yes, I believe even SP himself mentioned that we occasionally need to accept a madhyama adhikari as our guru. It isn't necessarily a catastrophe, provided we remain mindful that the vast majority of people are kanisthas, and most will likely only ever reach the level of a madhyama in a single lifetime... It does, however, present certain complications, much like what we have observed within the history of ISKCON...
Actually, it's the kanisthas—those still bogged down by material impressions—who arguably need an enlightened guru the most. A strong spiritual influence can pull them up to higher levels quite rapidly. Without that, they're stuck trying to purify themselves using only their own strength, which I guess could take forever. There's a reason SP emphasized being extremely careful to choose an uttama-adhikari as a guru. Sometimes, within large institutions, the importance of an uttama-adhikari guru is intentionally downplayed just so people don't go looking elsewhere when such teachers aren't available.
Actually, I'm not entirely sure how things work on a broader scale within the Vaishnava community, since my experience and knowledge have been almost exclusively limited to ISKCON, but that's alright. Your perspective really helped complete the picture... 👍
Ideally, a guru shouldn't even need a recommendation; they should just stand out through their own enlightenment. We're talking about someone at the uttama-adhikari level—someone fully realized with a direct connection to Krishna. Swami Prabhupada addresses this in Nectar of Instruction, verse 5.
"One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari. A neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master."
A guru of that caliber would naturally draw others to worship Krishna just by being there. They’d give disciples the taste and strength to follow sadhana without struggling—especially the taste for the maha mantra. If anyone asks, they might even provide concrete proof of their enlightenment and connection to Krishna.
It's pretty obvious that large institutions can't select gurus based on these specific standards. If they did, there would be terribly few of them, or maybe none at all, if nobody actually met those requirements.
Andrew Sanchez572 said:I am. Though, clearly, I tend to go unnoticed. 😁
Don't worry, you were definitely noticed. 😍
It's just that you gave a broad answer typical for the Vaishnava world, whereas the question was specifically about ISKCON. In this case, the Governing Body Commission is the one that decides who gets to be a guru or not.
darkmason4 said:I’m not trying to play devil's advocate here—that's not really what this space is for—but if there's anyone in the last century who truly mastered the art of being arrogant, it was definitely A.C.B.S.P. Honestly, I don't think I've ever met anyone more humble in my entire life. His incredible success is clear proof of the special mission God has set for him, along with every bit of help provided to ensure the movement continues to grow.
Look, my experience has been the exact opposite. I’ve talked to plenty of devotees, and everyone was incredibly happy and fulfilled about dedicating their best years to the mission. By the way, what does "sacrifice" actually mean? I bet people did it because they truly found joy in the act, rather than out of some heavy suffering—otherwise, it would just be plain depressing.
This isn't just some "pseudo-spiritual" phase; it’s a genuinely powerful journey toward self-discovery. However, it can easily devolve into something hollow if you don't have the right guidance or the common sense to tell the difference between the real deal and a cheap imitation. There's a massive gap between a true devotee with a huge heart and that arrogant, book-smart egoist who calls himself a devotee—the kind of person who spends their morning hating themselves and their afternoon hating the entire world.
It isn't really the process that’s at fault here; it's more about a lack of flexibility and failing to pick the right mindset. It’s like someone landing at a powerhouse like Google, only to burn every bridge because they couldn't tell the difference between the high performers and the toxic types. They’d eventually walk out the door trashing the whole company, even if their own performance reviews were absolutely stellar.
I’m really sorry you had to go through that. I know exactly what it feels like to be stuck in limbo—not quite reaching your spiritual goals, yet feeling disconnected from everything else, too. It’s like being caught in a tug-of-war between heaven and earth where you just can't find your footing. Fortunately, I managed to find my way out of that funk pretty quickly.
I really believe that at ISKCON, the most vital thing is for a person to be brutally honest with themselves: do they truly want to commit to the 100% monastic life as a monk, or would they rather serve within the congregation? I could never pull off that first lifestyle; I’d probably lose my mind within six months and end up in a psychiatric ward. It was clear to me right away that my physical, emotional, and mental makeup just isn't wired for that kind of thing.
As far as community involvement goes, the congregation model is definitely the sweet spot for me. I’ve got my own life, my wife, my kids, and my hobbies to balance out. I head to programs a few times a week to get inspired, and that’s really all there is to it. It’s like hitting the local aikido studio three or four times a week. I haven't neglected the material side of things either, because I know how vital it is—ultimately, it serves as the foundation that supports my spiritual life. You need a chair with more than just two legs to stay balanced. My rule of thumb is to take what resonates with who I am from any group, and just let the rest slide. Otherwise, you're just creating unnecessary friction and drama in your own head.
Actually, you find both types. The thing is, it's hard to talk to the ones who got "burned out" because they don't show up to the temple or the programs anymore. Generally speaking (if we're looking at our part of the US), this involves a huge number of former students from Harikes' era, back when things were truly fanatic. When Harikes left ISKCON, a lot of people were disillusioned and lost faith in the process. It might seem strange to people today, but times were different then, and the view of the guru wasn't what it is now. For them, the guru was practically Krishna himself; that’s just how they were taught. Today, the whole dynamic is completely different.
As for relationships with other Vaishnavas, unfortunately, not much has changed within ISKCON. The "Siksa outside ISKCON" book published a few years ago points to this, and I have some personal experiences to back it up too. This is something ISKCON in the US still has a lot of work to do on.
bluemason3 said:True, but everyone has to find that for themselves. I think what ISKCON is doing is about as much as an organization can actually do... just look at a church or any other religious group, old or new...
I agree. The only real issue is that most people who accept a guru aren't told how this works, so they end up totally blindsided when a guru does something scandalous or just leaves.
It's true that Bhaktivedanta Swami wasn't afraid to use the word "rascal." Here are just a few examples. I'll leave them in English since I can't be bothered to translate...
"Can you find out? But these people, they have become more learned than Krishna. In our country, Vivekananda: daridra-nārāyana-sevā. The whole Ramakrishna Mission is collecting funds only on this rascal plea." (Lecture - Japan, April 22, 1972)
Actually, this excerpt from a discussion with a student shows that attitude even more aggressively. I don't want to judge someone's enlightenment or spiritual progress based solely on their use of harsh language, but I definitely agree that many would be offended by such insults, which casts serious doubt on the enlightenment of anyone saying such things.
"Anyone who has no trace of Krishna consciousness, he is a rascal. There is our challenge. (indistinct) He may be a great philosopher, a religionist—he is a rascal, degree only. Cent percent rascal, or maybe ninety percent rascal, or seventy percent rascal, but they’re all rascals. The same example: stool, this side and that side. Because the upside of stool is dried up, you cannot say, “It is very nice.” And they’re all stool. Anyone who is not Krishna conscious, who does not know the science of Krishna, he’s useless." (Philosophy Discussions with Syamasundara dasa)
This is really just a tiny fraction of what can be found. To be honest, even though I follow Vaishnavism, I really don't like hearing others being insulted like that when they aren't part of the movement.
mistygull16 said:Can I ask a quick, maybe slightly ungrateful question? Since you used to hang out with those old Krishna followers way more than I did—and trust me, I was a regular at their place too—I’ve been wondering how anyone actually becomes a mentor. From what I gather, there were a few of them in the organization, but some fell from grace, right? Did things get messy? And did they become mentors because of some deep spiritual breakthrough, like reaching samadhi, or was it just based on something else entirely? It always felt kind of silly to me when people said someone just picked up a bunch of students and then suddenly crashed and burned! Or was being a mentor basically just synonymous with knowing the philosophy inside and out? I remember hearing a lot of praise for a Vishnupad, and apparently, after he had this specific experience, he started identifying himself as Krishna—or so I heard. Now, according to Advaita, that would be a pretty great sign, but for those Krishna folks, that's about as bad as it gets. Also, back when I used to visit them about 15 years ago in Cleveland, there was this one bhakta—I think his name was dervendra-sigurno, though I might have butchered the spelling—who I see now has his own Christian-Vaishnava community and his own following. He was always going on about the ecstasy he felt whenever he chanted a mantra or sang a bhajan. Man, those guys were really something... makes me feel a bit nostalgic just thinking about it. Anyway, in Advaita, you don't just become a mentor overnight. You practically have to be born an enlightened soul to inherit the lineage. At least, that's my take on it.
Actually, nobody has answered this yet, so even though I'm not part of that organization, I think I know how it works.
The GBC (Governing Body Commission) selects the gurus. The selection process relies on several key parameters. A potential guru needs support from their local community, shouldn't have any scandals on their record for at least the last 10 years, must represent the teachings of Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, stay loyal to the GBC, and so on. It's all laid out in a document called the "GBC law book."
So, I guess nobody can really guarantee that those declared as gurus are self-realized, or that they won't leave or do something contrary to Vaishnava rules down the road. People usually assume someone in a guru position was chosen because they are self-realized, but in many cases, that just isn't the case.
Within ISKCON, they've adopted an initiation system that's quite different from other Gaudiya Vaishnava lineages. It even diverges from the standards set by the Gaudiya Math, which is the organization Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada actually came from.
In ISKCON, the first initiation is treated as the big one. The second one—which some call brahmana initiation—is basically just secondary, I guess, and isn't considered essential. But if you look at the Gaudiya Math, they have Harinama initiation and Diksha initiation. In that case, Diksha is the main event, and you receive the brahmana thread during that process, much like in ISKCON. As someone else already pointed out, brahmana initiation wasn't really a thing in Gaudiya Vaishnavism until Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati introduced the change when he established the Gaudiya Math.
Beyond ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math, there are other Gaudiya Vaishnava groups—the so-called traditional Gaudiya lines—that follow a totally different setup. First, there's Harinama, which isn't even technically considered a full initiation. That’s just when a guru gives a potential student instructions to chant the Maha Mantra along with some other guidance. The student then tracks their own progress based on those instructions; if they're happy with how things are going, they take diksha. If not, they might just move on to a different guru and test them out the same way. In these traditional lines, people don't undergo brahmana initiation—mostly because Vaishnavas don't want to put themselves on a pedestal above anyone else, I suppose. So, you have Harinama, then diksha, and eventually, after some time, siddha pranali, where the guru reveals the eternal relationship between the student, themselves, and Krishna.