Vedic Authorities?

Manna said:Come on, stop talking nonsense. 🙂

🙂

Just to remind you... this ideology treats women like they're on the same level as idiots and garbage... if you want to actually wake up... how can you even tolerate that??? 😵

But that's just being honest, people are just being real. 🥳

bluemason3 said:Actually, he does, because he said it himself. He called Radhakund Babajija a fraud and a bunch of other things globally. I doubt Lovica is the issue here; I'd say these are just sincere beliefs. They're exclusive and wrong, sure, but they're sincere. 😁

As for the ritvik dilemma... it's true they functioned as ritviks during SP's lifetime. But from what I've noticed, it’s actually pretty common among Vaishnavas for a student not to accept disciples personally while their own Guru is still alive and active. However, once they pass away... it becomes very difficult to know what SP intended or who was following whom. Especially since the group I started the ritvik controversy with stopped showing me much trust once I saw how they actually operate. I just don't know.

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?

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.

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.

Megan Hughes71 said: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.

Just wait until some ISKCON devotee reads this; then you'll see your precious God.🙂 😁😁😁

Megan Hughes71 said: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.

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.

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.

I'll try to keep this brief. You probably don't need me to explain what Vaishnavism is. Gaudiya Vaishnavism is a specific movement within it that was started back in the Middle Ages by Gaurang, who is considered an avatar. What makes this tradition unique is that they don't traditionally practice Sannyas (monasticism), but they do have their own "sadhus"—ascetics or hermits known as Babajis. And then, of course, there are the "laypeople," the family-oriented folks. Bhaktisidhant and the teacher Prabhupada essentially led a reformation (which reminds me a bit of the Protestants in Christianity) and established a solid organization. They introduced monasticism—though with some tweaks to the standard Sannyas—along with other shifts in philosophy and practice.

Now, for followers of Krishna, the holiest site is Vrindavan and the surrounding area linked to Krishna's life. One of the most sacred spots there is Radhakund, which is literally Radhin Lake. This is where Babajis often gather or live.

From there, we get to Radhakund Babaji. 😁

Since they spread a reformed version (which they see as the original, though others might call it modified—typical for any reform movement), they didn't exactly get along with the traditionalists in the Saraswat lineage (the line of Bhaktisidhant, Prabhupada, and the other disciples).

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."

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.

Can someone help me out with a question? I already pitched this to some former ISKCON folks and was pretty happy with what they said—so, thanks to them for the insight. But now, I’m really looking to hear from a Vaishnav who isn't tied to the ISKCON scene. How is a Guru actually "determined" in those circles? Like, if a Monist wants to become a Guru, they'd need to have experienced Nirvikalpa samadhi, right? So, what kind of experience would a Guru under Babaj need to have? And if anyone wants to dive into how those experiences differ or overlap, go for it. Honestly, hearing more from the old ISKCON crowd wouldn't hurt either, but I'm mostly just curious about the general Vaishnav perspective.

mistygull16 said:Can someone help me out with a question? I already pitched this to some former ISKCON folks and was pretty happy with what they said—so, thanks to them for the insight. But now, I’m really looking to hear from a Vaishnav who isn't tied to the ISKCON scene. How is a Guru actually "determined" in those circles? Like, if a Monist wants to become a Guru, they'd need to have experienced Nirvikalpa samadhi, right? So, what kind of experience would a Guru under Babaj need to have? And if anyone wants to dive into how those experiences differ or overlap, go for it. Honestly, hearing more from the old ISKCON crowd wouldn't hurt either, but I'm mostly just curious about the general Vaishnav perspective.

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.

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.