Posts by bluemason3

granitebadger23 said: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.

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...

Good grief, Kenneth Peterson5, are you actually being this serious about this forum? 😁

good luck! 😛 😁

As for my take... I spent a lot of those years active on various online boards, and honestly, the only places where the discussions actually had some substance were the niche ones. I'm talking about communities tied to specific spiritual traditions where there were enough people to keep things moving, but also enough shared ground to prevent endless bickering or outsiders trying to deconstruct everything from the outside. The broader, more general interest groups? They’re usually either too strict and end up being ghost towns, or they're just chaotic mess of low-level arguments and endless back-and-forth.

My advice is to treat these kinds of spaces as light reading. Avoid getting too carried away and don't go in expecting anything too heavy 🙂

brightstag43 said:..Alright, let me throw out a totally naive question here... what's everyone's take on
?
Sai Baba🤷🤷

Babu? There's too much smoke for there not to be a fire, but since none of us have been sexually exploited or personally witnessed any fake materializations (and you can't exactly trust the legal system or police in India), what can we actually say for sure? I'd venture to say it isn't what he claims to be... but is he some kind of (failed) yogi, just an ordinary magician and manipulator, or perhaps someone possessed or even an alien? 🤷 🤣

darkmason4 said:bluemason3, I’m right there with you.
My spiritual path didn't actually kick off with SP's books either. My journey started about seven years before I ever joined the movement, and that period really shaped who I am and what I choose to accept or reject later on.
By the time I arrived at ISKCON, I already had a solid foundation in the Vedas, various spiritual realizations (mostly earned through hardship), and a spiritual guide whose teachings are universal. Because of that, fitting in was relatively easy.
Even now, I'm not just sitting idly by; I'm involved in several other groups that are connected to spirituality in one way or another.

All of this gives me the confidence that ISKCON won't break me, because my foundation isn't built on them. Instead, it rests on those earlier foundations, other organizations, a stable financial situation, and my college education.

Honestly, I never would have joined ISKCON or understood any of this if it weren't for that background. I've never had much patience for fake priests, false authorities, or a militant atmosphere. But for the sake of Krishna, SP, and the other wonderful teachers in the movement, I decided to take what works and simply ignore the rest. And if I have to—meaning, if I face personal attacks—I'll push back with that same energy without holding back.
So far, it's worked out fine—I haven't had bad experiences, just minor misunderstandings... I don't know, maybe my athletic build intimidates people... 😛

🤣

In person, major misunderstandings rarely happen. It’s honestly embarrassing how much we overthink things and try to act all high and mighty 😬

But hey, that’s why the forum exists 😂

bluemason3 said:I don't have it right in front of me at the moment, but I am absolutely certain I've read it (I'm not old enough to be senile and hallucinating 😁 ). He used terms even harsher than that. And it wasn't just them—other Gaudiya figures like Radhakunda Babaji were targeted too. Even the practice of siddha pranali was criticized, following the same line of thought as Bhaktisiddhanta's critiques... which isn't surprising given that Bhaktivinoda supported it, and he was Bhaktisiddhanta's brother. By the way, Bhaktisiddhanta actually viewed him as a demon—basically a deceased negative influence from Bhaktivinoda's past coming back to haunt him as a son 😁. Look, there are so many strange games played in India that it isn't really wise to take anything at face value. Of course, that's natural, and maybe even necessary if we are part of a specific lineage. But it isn't necessarily objective; most things exist in a gray area between black and white. Honestly, that was the main thing that rubbed me the wrong way at first, though I recognize there are cultural differences and linguistic barriers involved... regardless, the way he dealt so bluntly, albeit verbally, with all kinds of "heretics" is impossible to deny. It doesn't prove anything spiritually, either. Many saints (take St. Francis, for example) in various religions were quite narrow-minded regarding their own perfection versus the errors of others. I don't doubt someone can be just as spiritually advanced because of it—maybe it even helps with focus—but personally, I find it hard to swallow.

Anyway, the RKM was expanding rapidly in the same region (Bengal) at the exact same time Bhaktisiddhanta was active. It seems like conflicts of interest or territorial disputes often led to provocations and uncomfortable comments. Unfortunately, so far, I've only run into them from the Gaudiya side, not from the RKM side yet. That says something, I suppose. It doesn't mean they weren't there; maybe the RKM folks just haven't made their mistakes public yet. I don't know.

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.

I don't quite follow. On one hand, the facts don't really show him being in a rage or acting negative, so he doesn't come across as particularly arrogant. But then there's that ease of judgment—that philosophy suggesting we can just exploit karma, or the idea that devotees are somehow slightly above the rules. Not literally, obviously, but there was that attitude of mocking karma, almost like devotees are doing such important work that they can mess with a karma's lunch... like that episode a devotee mentioned recently—I can't recall exactly—about him standing up on a plane when you're supposed to be buckled in, acting like he's above those little constraints. I don't know... it just sits weird with me. And isn't it true that Tridandi isn't saying we should only be polite to other Vaishnavas, but that we should treat everyone with respect? Isn't ignoring that the very foundation of Vaishnava ethics?

So, what I'm saying is it would probably be easier to take someone like Sacinandan or Smit Krishn as teachers than to challenge SP himself or his guru. Then again, there are side issues at play; there's always politics. Besides, within this tiny slice of Gaudiya Vaishnavism alone, there are so many different traditions and lineages, let alone the entirety of humanity's spiritual history. We all have different tastes, temperaments, and ways of judging things. But honestly, I just don't care for it when people spend so much time tearing others down.

darkmason4 said:Do you actually have a quote somewhere where SP called Vivekananda and Ramakrishna Paramahansa scoundrels??!

I don't have it right in front of me at the moment, but I am absolutely certain I've read it (I'm not old enough to be senile and hallucinating 😁 ). He used terms even harsher than that. And it wasn't just them—other Gaudiya figures like Radhakunda Babaji were targeted too. Even the practice of siddha pranali was criticized, following the same line of thought as Bhaktisiddhanta's critiques... which isn't surprising given that Bhaktivinoda supported it, and he was Bhaktisiddhanta's brother. By the way, Bhaktisiddhanta actually viewed him as a demon—basically a deceased negative influence from Bhaktivinoda's past coming back to haunt him as a son 😁. Look, there are so many strange games played in India that it isn't really wise to take anything at face value. Of course, that's natural, and maybe even necessary if we are part of a specific lineage. But it isn't necessarily objective; most things exist in a gray area between black and white. Honestly, that was the main thing that rubbed me the wrong way at first, though I recognize there are cultural differences and linguistic barriers involved... regardless, the way he dealt so bluntly, albeit verbally, with all kinds of "heretics" is impossible to deny. It doesn't prove anything spiritually, either. Many saints (take St. Francis, for example) in various religions were quite narrow-minded regarding their own perfection versus the errors of others. I don't doubt someone can be just as spiritually advanced because of it—maybe it even helps with focus—but personally, I find it hard to swallow.

darkmason4 said:It absolutely holds true. At the start of May, I spent a week at a japa retreat on Maui with Sacinandan Swami.
I’ve honestly never felt such intense spiritual power and energy in my life—and that’s mostly thanks to him. It was easily the best seven days of my life!
When Sacinandan is nearby, you can really see that the process works and that we're on the right track. Not only does it work, but it’s so incredibly potent that it constantly exceeds my expectations, "breaking through" material consciousness much faster than I think I could handle. During that retreat, I had this unmistakable feeling that there wasn't a better place on Earth to be for spiritual growth and practicing the japa technique.

A little over two years.

Just hold on for a few more 😉

darkmason4 said:I'm with you on this. Even though I'm not a huge fan of the whole "personalism vs. impersonalism" debate—I mean, who really cares?—what truly blows me away is how Srila Prabhupada could take massive truths and explain them using everyday language and simple sentences.
At first glance, it might seem almost too simple, maybe even a bit raw or naive (especially to someone with an academic background), but after a while, you start to realize the sheer genius behind it. Especially if you stick to your daily chanting routine. Your entire perception shifts.
While certain truths remain blurry or vague in various religions around the world, here they are explained with straightforward, practical, and easy-to-grasp language.
- Who am I? Who is God? What is my relationship with Him? Where do I actually fit in the universe? What is the point of life? etc., etc.

I've read a ton of different books and wandered through many paths, but it was only through Srila Prabhupada's ability to speak directly and clearly that I found concise, unambiguous answers to these questions.

And I won't even mention how he’s practically the only spiritual teacher who laid out exactly what daily practice—sadhana—should look like, including what it consists of and how to perform each part. Everything from how to properly chant japa to which foods are sattvic, tamasic, or rajasic, and what we can or cannot offer to God.

As a member of ISKCON—specifically in a congregation rather than a temple setting—I feel like I'm working for a top-tier company like Microsoft or one of the big players in the US while doing my material work. I know there used to be all sorts of chaos, fanaticism, and ego issues, but today, ISKCON is better and more advanced than ever in America.

But look... it’s all a matter of personal perspective. I was among the first to read Prabhupada's books (back in middle school, I think), and I picked up others later on. I even used to head out to San Francisco or visit the temple back in the '90s... but I never really took any of it seriously until I stumbled upon information about Gaudiya Vaishnavism from entirely different sources. I could imagine myself as a Vaishnava, but certainly not as an ISKCON devotee, a Gaudiya Math follower, or some eccentric "Saraswata" following the "reformed" line of Bhaktisiddhanta. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for SP for bringing such a serious approach to the West during the hippie era (though some of that carried over into ISKCON later), and he definitely deserves respect as a Vaishnava. It’s always nice to run into devotees or occasionally find myself at a temple, but personally, it just doesn't pull me in, and those books leave me feeling pretty cold. 😳 🤷

So, you can't make sweeping generalizations. Some fish bite at one kind of hook, while others prefer a different bait.

What counts as "ideal" or "correct" is also pretty relative...

shadownomad4 said:That is correct. You can certainly act in Jesus's name, but naturally, those actions lack efficacy if you lack the power of the Holy Spirit to heal—especially if they were performed without His guidance. 👎 Jesus stated, "...for you did not do the will of my Father." This implies that we, as Christians, must remain in step with the Holy Spirit and act according to His will rather than our own impulses.

What about that guy who was casting out demons or healing people on his own authority? I think the disciples tried to stop him, saying "anyone not against us is for us," or something along those lines. I don't recall the exact details, but it was something like that.😬

There’s something funny about how things just spread within a group. Take those massive crowds following Krishna during his lectures—they always had that specific... how should I put this? That rising and falling cadence, punctuated by these long, dramatic pauses and that enlightened stare. Very much that "om shanti" vibe. 😁

As for me, I think Navadvip is perfectly fine, until he starts talking. He reminds me of this math professor I knew in another sect; whenever she spoke at meetings, she was so wrapped up in her own brilliance that she completely ignored the "group dynamic" (which is really just code for 🙂 😁). 😁

If you know, you know 😍

P.S. What was the name of that first guy from our neck of the woods? He took sannyas and I think he's living in San Francisco now, though he moved over to Gaudiya Math 🤔

I was living in Cleveland when he was going through that intense phase 😁
To me, it was just tedious. I was mostly just sitting there waiting for him to wrap it up so we could finally grab some lunch 🤣

I know it's about grihasta—not that I'm saying he retreated to a grihasta ashram, but rather that the grihasta lifestyle pulled him away from being active in ISKCON and forced him to focus on work and family issues and all that. Maya 😁 😁

But that’s just my impression from how he told the story. I might be wrong, and it's entirely possible that the organizational mess back then played a role too. It's probably just not something they'll talk about openly in front of the active members at those gatherings 🤷

mistygull16 said:Just scrolled through the forums and stumbled onto this interesting thread about Christ and Krishna. Does anyone know what happened with Vishnupad? I used to really enjoy listening to him—he always seemed to use his head, you know? Just wondering where he’s at these days and if he's still preaching the same message.

He stepped back. Seems like he fell into the whole "family man" trap.🤣

But I think he's still out there somewhere, just quiet. I heard his name mentioned at those old-school devotee dinners... though I'm not sure if he's even a member of the organization anymore. Maybe all the drama that started while he was popular just burnt him out.🤷 ...

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.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. Among those famous in the West, there are plenty of "self-proclaimed" mentors. They aren't necessarily part of a tradition. To take sannyas, you need someone to initiate you, but generally, it seems a mentor's role in India is more spontaneous, though it depends on the specific tradition or organization. Usually, a solid organization is what sets the criteria. With the Krishna followers, I believe the GBC has to "approve" it, rather than set the rules.

As for the idea that becoming a mentor isn't easy in Advaita—that's just talk for children (or naive Americans). Anyone with a decent pitch and a polished image can become a mentor. Even within respected institutions (like Shankarin mat), you find politics—deception, even assassination attempts—just like in any other organization fighting for power. It has nothing to do with spiritual paths or traditions. You have to look at the individual; most of them are more parasites than anything credible.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:

Amanda Roberts21 As specified by:
Well, I suppose... I might have been a bit excessive when I suggested that things were looking rather bleak... 🙄

It truly breaks my heart to think about the friends I’ve lost to this movement... people I once held dear, all gone because they chose to follow them. I have personally witnessed entire families unraveling right before my eyes because of Hare Krishna. It is deeply unsettling to watch such brilliant, capable individuals slowly lose their grip on reality. I've seen mothers hand over their children to these gurus, sending them into environments that were essentially breeding grounds for predators. Because of their rigid, arbitrary rules, marriages fall apart and homes are destroyed. I have watched beautiful, vibrant women wither away until they are mere shadows of themselves, surviving on nothing but cookies... It is heartbreaking to see intellectuals, people with so much to offer the world, humiliating themselves by selling books just to fund these temples. You end up with these deeply unhappy, intelligent people caught in a sort of limbo—neither fully present in the world nor finding peace in the spiritual realm, just stuck in this gray, hollow zone. I have seen far too much of this devastation firsthand... which is why I tend to be a bit more blunt when it comes to this movement. I believe the old leader was dangerous, and my intensity regarding this group stems from everything I've witnessed...

There’s this one video of his on YouTube—it’s actually a clip from a TV segment—where he makes several rather shallow observations... among other things.


One really ought to strive to comprehend the Divine, and perhaps, if one is truly diligent, attempt to cultivate a genuine love for Him...

That single sentence tells you everything you need to know about where he stands. For him, realizing God is purely an intellectual exercise—it’s all about data, logic, and accumulating KNOWLEDGE. Love, on the other hand, is treated as nothing more than a matter of willpower... That is the fundamental nature of this entire movement. It is built entirely upon his specific WORDS and commands, creating this elaborate facade of LOVE, when in reality, they harbor nothing but contempt for anyone who doesn't fit their mold...

Well, I’ve certainly looked at everything through many different lenses and tried my hand at just about everything under the sun, but looking back on it all now... I don't have any regrets. Some people end up in much worse positions than I did, mostly because they failed to stick to basic principles like rational judgment. It isn't entirely their fault, of course, but people have this tendency to lean into escapism... and then when reality finally hits them, they find someone else to blame instead of taking responsibility for themselves...

He was always such a stickler for the rules—don't criticize the devotees and stay far away from any kind of sectarianism. But honestly, when you look at those two principles closely, they feel like a direct assault on anyone's right to speak their mind or offer an honest opinion. I’ve seen some people cling to those dictates as if their lives depended on it, holding onto them with absolutely no flexibility whatsoever... and frankly, that just can't be the right way to go about things.

Yeah, I think we’re seeing an attempt to transplant an entire culture here—not just spirituality, but everything. In America, this isn't viewed as deep-rooted tradition like it is in India; it's treated as pure exoticism. That tends to attract people who are more lost than they are grounded. On the flip side, maybe that's how people actually find their way. They stumble through the chaos and eventually build a foundation that's actually healthier than those New Age types chasing "chakra alignment" or "instant enlightenment" without any real substance behind it.

bluemason3 said:Like I said, I think he made some wrong moves, but the real circus started after he died. The "inner circle" that took over often pushed aside long-time, direct students of SPD. For instance, that specific guru school you mentioned wasn't originally run by those "monks" who were later convicted; it was managed by a couple appointed by SPD itself. But once he passed, the new crowd ousted them. So, nothing is purely black or white. I'll say again: his specific worldview likely fueled an arrogance that eventually led to manipulation and irresponsibility, but I don't think there was anything inherently evil or malicious in his core. I can't say the same for some of the second-generation leaders.

But this current "third" generation of gurus—the ones who stayed grounded after that whole zonal acharya mess blew up—seems better. Personally, I find many of them, like Sacinandan or Smita Krishna Svami, to be high quality.🙂

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Well, if we are going to truly dissect what the core issue is with Jesuit leadership, it seems to me that the fundamental problem boils down to a total lack of respect for anyone outside of their own inner circle. Of course, things have softened up a bit lately, but back in the day... 🙄🙄🙄
In fact, from what I can gather, while the intensity has certainly died down, it feels as though the whole thing has become somewhat diluted in the process.
I suppose it’s just one of those things where there are pros and cons to every situation...

👍