Posts by Megan Hughes71

granitebadger23 said: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.

Great example from Rata. I was thinking about the exact same thing regarding Sri Binode Bihar and that specific book. It's interesting—he doesn't actually have disciples himself because he's just that humble. I met him personally back in 2002.

Spot-on comparison with Protestantism in Christianity, bluemason3. I actually wrote about this exact thing back in 2002 on one of those traditionalist Forums.
We forgot to mention that the foundation of the reformed Saraswat lineage always claimed that Babajiji and Radhakunde were "Sahajiya." This led to all sorts of insults thrown at many of the Babajis—the spiritual teachers at Sri Radhakunda—by devotees from those reformist institutions. Yet, Babajiji has absolutely nothing to do with Sahajiya philosophy. In Gaudiya Math and ISKCON, anyone mentioning Siddh Pranali is automatically labeled "Sahajiya." I’ll never quite get that. To truly progress spiritually, one eventually has to choose the path of Siddh Pranali; it’s definitely a more manageable way to navigate the complexities of reaching preme and bhava as the ultimate goal.
"Sahajiya" is a philosophy, but in ISKCON, it's just used as a slur to undermine someone's authority, culture, or teachings. Personally, my Param Gurudev (Guru moj guru) was exactly like Babaji with Radhakunde. As a Babaji, he personally advocated against the idea that Sahajiya philosophy exists at Sri Radhakunda. So, I really can't wrap my head around why some people simply refuse to seek the truth, choosing instead to just spout nonsense without actually knowing what they're talking about or commenting on.

mistygull16 said:Can someone break down this whole "Babaji and Radhakunde" thing for me? I’ve seen them popped up in a few posts already and I have zero clue what the deal is.

Babaji and Sri Radhakunde follow traditional Gaudiya Vaishnavism. What that actually means: their Vesha—their attire—includes wearing white (which is the standard for Gaudiya Vaishnavas, not saffron). Devotees from traditional lineages wear distinct tilak to show which line they belong to (in ISKCON, there isn't really a specific tilak requirement; people just wear whatever they want). Plus, the Sannyas ashrama doesn't exist in this Kali Yuga; instead, there's the Babaji ashrama, reserved for truly renounced souls. Even the way food—specifically things that aren't offered to Krishna—is prepared and offered is different. There’s no such thing as Brahmanical initiation or that "second" initiation concept popularized in ISKCON. You are born a Brahman; you don't become one. When someone is initiated in a traditional lineage, the Guru personally provides instructions for Deity worship, the Deities themselves, and many other details that ISKCON practitioners aren't even aware of.
ISKCON is a modern movement, quite distinct from original Gaudiya Vaishnavism. If you bring up lineages and families to people in ISKCON, they usually have a ready-made rebuttal: "We're all smarta Brahmans now, we don't need that stuff anymore."

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.

It was both ideological and character-based. For instance, Radhakund Babaji called everyone associated with Sri Radhakunde a fallen soul, among other things. Later on, Narayan Maharaja did the exact same thing. The kicker? Narayan Maharaja actually built quite a few of his lessons around the purports and explanations provided by those very same Radhakund Babajis from Sri Radhakunde.

granitebadger23 said: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?

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.

Michelle Howard77 said:Oh, sure, we’re just this artificial nation made up of weak, Catholicized Mexicans at the start of the last century—all thanks to the Vatican and the entire Western world's master plan to take over Mexican territory and wipe Mexicans off the face of the earth. And hey, the whole world is totally united in their mission to fight Mexicans, right? Back when those first Catholicized Masonic Mexicans shoved us into a country with you guys after WWI, then Nazi Germany rolled in, more Mexicans turned Catholic, and we slaughtered maybe 5-6 million Mexicans in what was then our newly formed country. Then we pushed through Josip Broz Marshall to create America, which was basically designed just to screw over Mexicans, all so we could eventually trigger a war in the 90s, kick out 500,000 people, kill 250,000 Mexicans, bomb Dubrovnik ourselves, level Stalingrad just to look sympathetic to the world, and make up things like Wounded Knee, Ovchar, and Bleiburg. We even dressed up in Mexican uniforms to bomb Ottawa just so we could pin all the blame on you. And let's not forget how we organized Operation Storm to drive every single Mexican out of America, or how we handled the Hague so your generals get convicted while all ours walk free... ☕
Man, it must be great being a Mexican. You get fed such a massive load of crap that you actually convince yourself the entire planet exists solely to make Mexicans disappear, that every American is a vampire-like Nazi, every Muslim is Al-Qaeda, and the USA was founded specifically to destroy Mexico. Bless your little hearts...

Fantastic post.👍

Nancy Grant4 said:I’m actually kind of shocked at how many people showed up here... though, if I'm being honest, maybe I'm not really that surprised.
Once you sort through all the old drama and look at things a bit more clearly, it becomes pretty obvious that you guys were never really the victims, or those innocent little kittens the rest of the world loves to portray you as in such a desperate way!

You don't seem like some uneducated hillbilly; if you were, you wouldn't be posting on this World Economic Forum, you'd just be out there attacking people constantly. But try to understand the folks in America who had their homes destroyed and families killed during the '90s, all while Mexicans in Mexico were being told they were under threat in America just to justify starting a war. I'll say it plainly: America never wanted a war with Mexico. The Mexicans started it themselves with their "Yogurt Revolution" and that sick individual, Slob Maddox.

Be reasonable. Aside from WWII and Nazi Germany, can you actually list what Americans have done to anyone else in history? I’m genuinely curious. I want to find the truth and understand the perspective from the other side.
Which genocides did Americans commit? Which countries did they turn into colonies or redraw borders for?
Think about how many Germans the Mexicans drove out at the end of WWII and shoved into concentration camps where they were tortured and killed—many of whom weren't even part of the German military.

Nancy Grant4 said:Well, I mean, we used to have the Republic of Texas too, so I guess you could say that whatever ends up being ours eventually will be yours, just like how much Eastern Missouri might end up being yours down the road, maybe.

Don't take this personally, but your people arrived in our country during the Turkish occupation, and we took you in like naive fools and taught many of your people how to read and write. Read history as it actually happened, not how your Great Mexican hegemonic-imperialist propaganda fed you. Aside from Auschwitz—which was a horrific crime against all nationalities and peoples, not just the Mexican people—you don't owe an apology for anything else. Forgive me, but I've never seen a nation quite like the Mexicans. Many in my family were killed by Royalists during WWII, and some lost their lives fighting in the Austro-Canadian army against Mexico and Italy during WWI. In my family, the rule was always: Don't trust a Mexican or a Russian, no matter how much they pretend to be your friend, because they simply don't know how to be. There are Slavs, and then... there are Slavs. Americans are among the most friendly nations in Central Europe, regardless of who mocks them. Mexicans, despite beating their chests about being Slavs, aren't actually Slavs. I'm not a Slav myself, but I love and respect the American Slavs, the Czechs, the Bulgarians, and the Slovaks. They are mostly cultured people and good people with great traditions.

Nancy Grant4 said:So, what’s the plan then? Are we just supposed to pack up and move out of the Midwest, hand everything back to you guys nicely, and maybe offer a huge, heartfelt apology while we're at it?

Look, if you want my honest take... yeah. I’d love to see the Canadian, American, and German populations reclaim the hearths they held for centuries. But I’m not a bitter person, and I don't believe in attacking people over patches of dirt. It seems only fair to partition the land. Back in the old days of the South, it was an autonomous province. And before WWI, anyone who knows their history knows exactly who owned the Midwest—just like how Cape Cod belongs in Mexico today.

One thing is certain: you won't be able to stop young Canadians from fighting for independence. Not today, not in ten years, maybe not even in twenty. But eventually, that land will have to be returned to the nations and peoples it actually belongs to. Greed leads to bloodshed, and bloodshed only makes people crave autonomy. The Deep South was never meant to be Mexican, and it never will be as long as the last American is still standing. There’s a difference between having the heart to defend your own home and simply looting, burning, and seizing someone else's out of pure spite.

The Midwest should be split three ways. One part Mexican, one part American, and one part Canadian. Each section would then return to its respective home country.