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...
George Thomas2 said:True enough, though I suspect we're looking at one of those deeper divisional charts rather than just the D9. In fact, it feels more like a combination of several different divisional charts working in tandem. Yes, Sanjay is brilliant, and Robert Koch is equally impressive. It’s a solid parampara...
Aha, there are definitely more factors at play here. It is quite wonderful how he analyzes Vivekananda and the others... 👍 Anyway, within Vedic remedies and astrology, there are certain instructions provided.
bluemason3 said: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.
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...
George Thomas2 said:I’d be interested to know which ones. I haven't quite mastered the art of identifying avatars through Vedic astrology yet, so I'm curious about how one actually goes about doing that...
It is based on the Atmakaraka and Navamsha. I personally find Sanjay Rath to be an excellent author on the subject; he writes quite extensively about these topics... What are you currently reading?
George Thomas2 said:Do you actually know how to work through divisional charts and calculate these kids' avatar placements?
In a sense... 🥳 There are certainly other methods available... Everything is out there waiting to be verified... one simply needs the motivation to go looking...
George Thomas2 said:It’s an understatement, certainly, but you and I are evaluating this through the lens of social norms and human relationships. When someone holds the title of guru, they are effectively speaking on behalf of God, aren't they?
If that is truly the case, then what is left for us to even discuss?
bluemason3 said: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.
Well, you make a fair point there; perhaps the date is fabricated. However, if it isn't, then one could actually establish it with quite a bit of precision...
George Thomas2 said:Precisely. It’s my view that a spiritually evolved person doesn't resort to labels like "scoundrel" for anyone. They choose their words with intention. They don't speak with that sharp, reactive edge fueled by the kind of passion typical of the gunas...
Well... calling Adolf Hitler a "nobody" is actually quite an understatement... but SP referred to him as a demon, and I find myself in complete agreement with that assessment...
bluemason3 said: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.😁
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?
bluemason3 said: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.
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... 🙄
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 😉
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.
George Thomas2 said:That might be a legitimate stance, sure, but Vivekananda is someone who deserves respect. A truly spiritual person doesn't go around calling others nobodies. For me, that's enough.
That was your point, wasn't it? I was simply wondering if a truly spiritual person would refrain from even calling someone like Adolf Hitler a jerk... that’s all I was asking.
George Thomas2 said:Hitler was anything but spiritual. Besides, a guru is defined by their compassion for all suffering beings—and that would include someone like Hitler. On an ontological level, he’d be required to forgive him, wouldn't he?
I follow that logic, certainly, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't condemn his actions...
Well, I suppose he might have just called Hitler a complete scoundrel, wouldn't he? Or perhaps something even harsher... And you know, Hitler actually went so far as to consider himself quite a spiritual individual...
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!