Posts by bluemason3

Amanda Roberts21 said:Fine, maybe I went a bit overboard—admitting things were "sparse" was probably too much... 🙄

But honestly, my heart breaks for certain friends of mine who joined them—people I lost entirely because of this cult. I have watched whole families fall apart over Hare Krishna, seen brilliant, capable people lose all touch with reality, and witnessed mothers handing their children over to these guru-led schools that were nothing more than breeding grounds for predators. I've seen marriages end because of their rigid little rules, seen beautiful women turn themselves into miserable shadows just scavenging for cookie crumbs, and watched intellectuals humiliate themselves selling books just to fund those temples. It’s devastating to see smart, unhappy people stuck in this gray limbo—neither here nor there. I’ve seen it all firsthand, which is why I think the old man was dangerous—and yeah, maybe I get a little heated when it comes to this movement...

There is this one video of his on YouTube from a TV appearance where he makes several shallow statements, including:


you need to REALIZE God and TRY to love Him

That single sentence tells you everything you need to know about his mindset. To him, knowing God is just a matter of information—it's a mental exercise, a matter of KNOWLEDGE—whereas love is treated as a mere act of WILL. That is the entire movement in a nutshell: built entirely on HIS WORDS and His commands, pretending to LOVE while they actually despise anything that isn't them.

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.

mistygull16 said:I'm trying to stick to our usual deep-dive topics, and honestly, I think being in the West gives us a better vantage point for looking at Vedanta—at least, that's my two cents.
The reason I keep insisting that Advaita sits above duality is because, well, every religion is inherently dualistic. Even people calling themselves Advaitins often treat God as some external entity in their daily lives. Real Advaita should kick in after saguna samadhi (where there's still a "me" and a "God") and lead into the experience of nirguna samadhi—where names and forms just evaporate and you're left with pure sat-chid-ananda existence.
Now, someone could always argue there are even higher transcendental forms or whatever, etc., etc.
Prabhupada mentioned that souls merged with Brahman eventually return, but you don't really see testimonies for that kind of thing. Every religion basically claims that after their version of nirguna, their specific version of Heaven kicks in, which just puts us right back at square one.
But hey, I guess we can all agree we don't need to lose sleep over these heavy questions. We should only dive in as much as actually inspires us.
At the end of the day, we can all pretty much agree that God is Love.

Look, these debates have been going on forever, and we’re never going to reach some absolute finality. It's worth noting that the other two schools are younger and emerged specifically to challenge Shankara. You can't just dismiss them as inferior; they wouldn't have even gained traction if they hadn't successfully contested the older Shankara traditions, much like how he famously held his own against the Buddhists of his era. It's just that most of us in America aren't deeply versed in Hindu traditions, Sanskrit, or the nuances required to dive into the heavy lifting. That makes Advaita feel much more accessible to us—it's intellectual, easy to grasp, and simple to present outside of its original context.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:But my point is, in ISKCON, those two are linked. Harinam involves the yagna, whereas the Brahminical aspect is whispered privately, if I'm not mistaken...

I get that’s how they do things at ISKCON, but I’m just saying it isn't really traditional. It’s more of a Bhaktisiddhanta interpretation, which hasn't always been the standard practice and isn't exactly backed up by the ancient texts. Even Gauranga himself would often choose to eat food from Brahmins nearby rather than from his own advanced students, mostly out of respect for social norms. He was pretty clear about following those standards. So, there aren't many strong arguments to use here. Then again, it all comes down to ideology and interpretation, and arguing over that feels a bit pointless. To me, the real issue is practical. If we're measuring how well a system works, the biggest flaw seems to be this lack of humility—that tendency to act superior toward anyone outside the fold.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Well, you see, the first initiation is Harinam, followed by the second, which is Brahmana.
There simply isn't a third one...🤷

There isn't even a first one. Harinam isn't a traditional initiation with the same level of formality you see in ISKCON, nor does it imply accepting the giver as your guru. If I remember correctly, in ISKCON, this is actually more significant than mantra diksha, and usually, the same teacher handles both. Or am I off base here?

So, traditionally speaking, you have harinam—which isn't a heavy-duty initiation and is just called harinam, not diksha—and then you have mantra initiation, which is the only true initiation. As for the castes (brahmic initiations), they aren't really part of that equation.

George Thomas2 said:There’s probably a way to verify that too; I just haven't figured out the method yet.😢

Are you talking about a birth date? You can cross-reference it using other major life events, though it's all basically an estimate.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:In India, there are actually certain temples where Westerners aren't even permitted to step foot. That is my point.
And what about Brahminical initiation?

Brahminical initiation is a pretty stretched concept, at least according to the literature. From the debates I've seen where both sides actually know their stuff, those arguing against such initiations always had much stronger explanations and more scriptural backing. Beyond that, the initiations presented by the Prabhupada and Bhaktisidhanta lineage aren't the original Gaudiya tradition; they're modified. In the original texts, there’s no mention of brahminical initiations, nor any first or second initiations. You have harinam—which isn't guru diksha and can be received from various people until you choose a guru—and then you have guru diksha. It's a matter of social status that doesn't actually change who you are. So, these first and second initiations, along with the brahminical ones, are relatively modern "inventions," and I won't be the judge of how real they are. One thing is certain: neither Gauranga, nor his followers, nor Goswamiji, nor anyone prior to Bhaktisidhanta practiced them.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:what was actually 🙂
was he truly malicious? 🤣
To be honest, I don't quite recall, though it remains a possibility. I personally never experienced things in such a dramatic fashion. He certainly had his moments of brilliance... 🙄

It feels a bit off for a religion where the entire focus rests on the few direct instructions left by the most revered avatar and founder of ISKCON. It isn't just the way he dismissed people, but his general attitude toward anyone outside his own circle—referring to laypeople as "Karimya," or looking down on secular authorities and society at large. That’s probably the only real critique I have. Ideological debates aside, and since he didn't have the kind of scandals that sank so many other Indian gurus, this remains a significant point personally, especially after his passing. That sense of superiority and lack of accountability is, in my view, one of the main reasons everything turned into such a circus at ISKCON after he died.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:That is precisely why we have Jyotish at our disposal; it allows us to discern who truly carries the essence of an avatar and who is merely posing as one 😉

Exactly. It’s not like you can just go around making up dates of birth and calling it a day. I'm not even sure how much weight those dates should carry anyway.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Well, yes, when you look at the big picture, SP didn't shy away from women, sweets, or anything of the sort; he was always quite open about sharing his wisdom and giving everyone a fair shot.

I'm not entirely sure what we're debating here. It’s not that he rejected them. That just isn't how this type of religion works. It’s not like Christians, Muslims, or other missionary-style faiths reject people; they're happy to let anyone join. The real point is that they remain exclusivist in their own way—they still hold onto that sense of absolute ideological superiority, even if they leave the door wide open for anyone to walk through.😁

George Thomas2 said:Are you actually equating Vivekananda with Hitler?

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Not quite
what about you?

But Prabhupada didn't just call people jerks; he targeted figures like Swami Vivekananda and his teacher—who was even more prominent back in India—along with other Gaudiya Vaishnavism lineages. And he did it based on ideology, not personal character flaws.

mistygull16 said:I feel like everyone’s got their own personal truth to find, kind of like what the Bhagavad Gita talks about—better to follow your own dharma, even if you mess it up, than to perfectly follow someone else's path. If you're leaning toward the spiritual side of things, you definitely need an open heart, but honestly? You need a sharp sense of common sense too.
Because let's face it, having a big heart without any logic just sends you spiraling into irrational emotions.
A spiritual person tends to see purpose in everything since they believe in being guided by the transcendental. I wouldn't dream of overstepping by commenting too much on Prabhupada, but back then, those souls really needed him. I used to spend my time reading his books and it was my way of just... chilling out. I never took it super seriously, really; I just let myself get lost in it to escape reality for a bit. But the moment I started thinking they might actually be closest to the truth, it started weighing on me, and I knew I had to keep digging.
That’s why I say we should let our own hearts act as one of the authorities of the Vedanta.
In my view, today's true authorities of the Vedanta—the gurus and avatars—are the ones following the lineage of Adi Shankara. Not that I'm dismissing other paths or anything!

They might hold authority within Advaita Vedanta, but that doesn't apply to the other two branches. 😁 😁

I'd just be a bit careful with the whole "avatar" label. It gets thrown around way too easily out there—every little town seems to have its own.

silentheron25 said:I honestly don't know what you people do with your time; it’s actually unbelievable. Go outside, enjoy the summer, grab a drink, find a partner—just stop overanalyzing these Indian delusions that aren't going to get you anywhere in the end. Live your life instead of letting other people or some books try to micromanage it for you. It’s a disaster.

Right on cue. I'm sure finding someone to dominate will make you incredibly happy.😂

If you're primitive enough, maybe they'll actually go for it... 🤷

Amanda Roberts21 said:So what if he was old? HE WASN'T ENLIGHTENED.

He was just some limited old man with an insane amount of willpower.

The guy was a fanatic on a mission.

That's exactly why those poor souls who fall into that cult are lost causes—the more years they waste in there, the more certain it is that they'll be mentally scarred for the rest of their lives.

That's an exaggeration.

The whole concept of "enlightenment" is just a mindless Western myth. There are plenty of spiritual traditions, and most involve some kind of mystical experience. You’ll have yoginis and jnanis talking about different types of samadhi, bhakti, or bhavas, but none of them suddenly become free from biases, beliefs, or individual quirks overnight. This idea of "enlightenment" being some destination of absolute perfection? It's a myth. It doesn't exist.

As for his actual spiritual depth, I honestly don't know. Even someone like Saint Francis of Assisi, as much as I respect him, was essentially a fanatic who viewed everyone else—anyone non-Christian—as being in error. And yet, I'd call him a spiritual giant. Then you look at Adi Shankara and his exclusivity. Given that you're a woman, a non-brahmin, and a layperson, you wouldn't have any standing in his version of ultimate spirituality anyway.

So, while I agree that Prabhupada had more biases and limitations than some others, everyone has them. That shouldn't be used as a yardstick for spirituality.

boldsailor2 said:If someone’s acting arrogant, it’s usually because they think they can just slap "as it truly is" after the name Bhagavad Gita—like they own a monopoly on God and spirituality while everyone else is just some demon or lost soul trapped in maya. I’m honestly just speaking up for all those devotees who poured their best years and their entire health into this fake version of spirituality, only to end up totally abandoned—left alone, without an education, without money, without a family, and just completely broken midway between heaven and earth.
... to me, that is demonic in the truest sense of the word... and when I look back at everything now, it honestly makes me want to lose my mind!

Yeah... it's a pretty childish way to look at things. But I think part of it is because Srila Prabhupada was already quite elderly when he arrived. Unlike, say, a young CEO starting a company today, he wasn't trying to adapt spirituality to a foreign cultural context. Instead, he transplanted an entire culture into a different mindset. That creates a totally different dynamic than what you see with Indians drawn to Vaishnavism. It's probably similar to our conservative Christians here in the States—that traditionalist, theistic approach where everything is a pivot toward the past, from the clothes to the theology to the daily conduct. But once you move outside your own culture, those views stop being a lifestyle and start looking like exoticism or an escape, which tends to attract a very specific type of person.

An older man has already built and solidified his "inner structure," and he has less time to change his theses. When he passed, he left behind disciples who, judging by later events, clearly weren't ready.

Beyond those "misunderstandings," I think there were a few genuinely wrong stances taken. Still, despite all that, he brought an aspect of Hinduism to the West that people wouldn't have known otherwise—even though devotion and bhakti are much more common in India itself than the yoga that Westerners often mistake for the entirety of Indian spirituality.🙂

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Yes, I actually left ISKCON about 11 years ago. Even so, I had a spiritual teacher, and regardless of where my spiritual journey has taken me since then, he remains my inspiration and my heart.
So, I wouldn't say I'm "barely" informed; rather, I am quite deeply informed.
If there is anything else you're curious about, please feel free to ask.

Are you quite sure boldsailor2 isn't actually better informed? 😉 🤣

Fine, if he's bowing out of the debate, I guess I'll just keep talking to myself. 🤣

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Now, let's not be unfair here. That particular term comes up quite frequently, and it is often translated or provided with extra clarification, just like any other related concept. Brahman is essentially the effulgence of Vishnu. If it has been translated as Krishna in a certain passage, it's almost certainly within a very clear context accompanied by a thorough explanation.
As I have mentioned before, I am certainly no legal expert, but I do strive for a fair and balanced analysis...

That’s a classic one-sided view. Saying Brahman is the radiance of Vishnu? That’s a perspective held by certain Vaishnavas. Not all Vaishnavas actually share that exact stance—some see a distinction between Brahman and Krishna, while others see them as equal aspects of Vishnu. I highly doubt Shaivites, Shaktas, Advaitins, Tantrics, or anyone else using the same terminology or reading the same texts (like the Bhagavad Gita) would find that interpretation particularly appealing, given how differently they interpret it.

I wouldn't say it's purely about context; it's more about how ideology drives interpretation. Like I said, this isn't necessarily a "problem" for Vaishnavas, it's just not a representation of the whole of American spiritual tradition, but rather one specific sect within it. It’s no different from a Christian believing that Yoga, Vaishnavism, and Karate are all satanic and interpreting everything through that lens. That doesn't make their view an objective truth.

There aren't really any universal truths; everything holds weight within its own worldview. However, no single group can claim to represent the entirety of this vast culture or act as the ultimate authority on Vedic scriptures, especially in a tradition as complex and layered as this one. Claiming elitist or exclusive ownership over these interpretations is a stretch.

boldsailor2 said:The idea of being an eternal servant of Krishna—that’s how the soul's nature is described—really sits within the whole philosophy of the *jiva*. Once you actually grasp the distinction between the *jiva* and the *atma*, there won't be any more debate over whether "our" philosophy is right or wrong... because the *jiva* isn't the *atma*... and honestly, you have to dig into the Sanskrit to really get that. I've always wondered why Shrila Prabhupada equated the *jiva* with the *atma*... it just doesn't seem to line up to me.

Look... you're looking at this from your own perspective again. They follow their own path based on Rupa Goswami and Sanatana Dharma, not Adi Shankara.😁 It doesn't make sense to judge them like that; they view other traditions the same way we view theirs. People should be free to follow their own philosophy. My only issue is when certain groups try to force their views on everyone else, acting like they’re the sole, definitive representatives of American Hinduism or Indian culture.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:...which is precisely why I used the word "introduction"... focusing on foundational concepts and the inherent value of literal, word-for-word translation...

That’s a debatable point. Spiritual terminology is inherently multilayered, abstract, and open to various interpretations—which makes translation tricky. Even Shrila Prabhupada's translations aren't always strictly literal in order to convey the intended meaning. For instance, if a text mentions Brahman, they might occasionally translate it as Krishna because, within their specific philosophical framework, the impersonal Brahman is seen as an emanation of Krishna. It’s technically correct according to that view, though it might leave young devotees a bit confused 😁. But it’s an interpretation, not a raw literalism. While it works perfectly for Vaishnavas, anyone else might struggle without prior context. So, to put it simply: unless you’re Gaudiya, you really need some foundational knowledge to navigate their translations and distinguish between what's literal and what's being interpreted for the sake of the philosophy.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Well, it seems the passions have been stirred once again... I am certainly no legal expert, and while I am well aware there have been certain internal frictions within ISKCON, I personally find them all quite irrelevant. To my mind, at least. Every organization, much like any other institution you might encounter in America, is bound to have its own set of flaws and growing pains.

If a person remains truly open and honest with themselves, they will recognize that these distractions are merely the traps of Maya; honestly, I simply refuse to get entangled in such politics.

I hold the literature by Shrila Prabhupada in high regard for two specific reasons. First, it serves as a literal translation from the Sanskrit—word for word, syllable for syllable if necessary—which provided immense value and significance to my own journey. Second, for anyone just beginning to explore this culture, it offers essential foundational knowledge.
Please, do not come for me; I am not suggesting that everything is perfect or all-encompassing. An intelligent individual always seeks out deeper knowledge and more information... and after all, no one is perfect.

I have to disagree there. Even though I enjoy reading it too, it represents only a small slice of the pie. It's a bit like reading nothing but Mormon or Jehovah's Witness texts and then using them as the ultimate yardstick for all of Christianity, or Western culture, or even the entire cosmos.😁

That might be true for members of certain groups, and as such, it's perfectly sufficient. I don't doubt anyone can make spiritual progress through Gaudiya Vaishnavism just as well as through any other path, perhaps even better. However, this isn't representative of general Indian culture, Hinduism, the Vedas, or Vedanta. Instead, it's one famous and respected, yet relatively small and highly exclusive tradition within the broader Hindu context.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:It is true that SpaceX calls certain pseudo-gurus nothing but frauds, though I am not entirely convinced that what you mentioned regarding Swami Vivekananda and those others falls under that category.
Gaudiya Vaishnavas, much like Vaishnavas in general, have a strong distaste for impersonalists, but honestly, that is a perfectly legitimate stance for them to take.

The Hare Krishnas are Gaudiya Vaishnavas, which means every single author within that sampradaya holds legitimate authority over them.

Once again, we are simply having the wrong argument...

He actually called other Gaudiya practitioners scoundrels too—even some of the practices Bhaktivinoda Thakur promoted, like the siddha pranali. That attitude dates back to Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, who famously stood his ground against his own brother, a prisoner of the traditional lineage. Think of Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati as a reformer, sort of like the Protestants in American Christianity... if that's how he treated his own family, imagine how he spoke to everyone else.😁