Vedic Authorities?

bluemason3 said: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. 🤣

I honestly cannot say for certain just how much he truly knows or where his knowledge ends.
Based solely on what he has written up to this point, I simply cannot make that determination...
Unlike him, however, I make no effort to be pretentious or condescending.

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!

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!

Don't you think indulging in those kinds of emotions is just a waste of precious time?
For me, it also feels nearly criminal. I have certainly faced my own share of injustices, but life moves forward regardless. It is all karma, after all. I had to come to terms with the fact that the spiritual path isn't a straight line; it functions more like a spiral. At certain points, you are forced to detach from the people or things you love most, which is perfectly natural. It is all part of the experience, and one must accept it...

I am not sure how long it has been since you went through that, but for me, those intense reactions were still hitting me three years later. Eventually, I managed to pull myself together and move on. I simply filtered out what was good from what was bad, and that was that...

boldsailor2 said:btw this whole idea of impersonalism and those "impersonalists" Shrila Prabhupada talks about—it’s basically just a concept living in his head and his books. I mean, who actually studies Advaita philosophy enough to claim that what he writes in his books has nothing to do with reality? It’s honestly a total outlier case—fighting against something that doesn't even exist in the real world... you'd have to be pretty gifted to pull off such a wrong interpretation

silentheron25 Yeah, he was definitely talented at fighting monism, I'll give him that. But hey, at least he convinced me I'm a monist. It actually helped clear things up for me since I hadn't really thought about certain stuff before—so, thanks for that, I guess. Plus, he was a huge inspiration for my Mantradiksha, and hopefully, I'll be getting my vepa this summer.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:From what I have gathered, the mayavadi seeks nothing more than to merge into Brahman, whereas the devotee simply longs to serve their deity for all eternity.

Calling them "mayavadi" feels like a bit of a dig—basically implying everything is just maya, which is why people use that label to poke fun at them.
Anyway, you can pretty much split things into Dvaita and Advaita (monism) schools.
The Dvaita school has more branches and, honestly, feels a lot more religious to me. They separate God from all other beings, claiming God has a specific residence, a form, a name, and so on... it’s all supposed to be transcendental. Personally, I don't quite buy the logic there; if something has a name and a shape, it’s clearly not "beyond" those things.
They claim brahman is just this pure radiance or total stillness, and somehow even lower in rank than the actual home of a personal God.
If you ask me, most major religions follow this Dvaita principle, just with different flavors of theology.

Then you've got the Advaita school, or monism. They argue that true transcendence happens when names and forms totally drop away, leaving nothing but one omnipresent, pure consciousness. As an individual evolves spiritually and expands their awareness to that point of being everywhere, they realize they are just that one consciousness: Brahman.
The various monist "sub-schools" aren't really fighting any theological wars; they just use different techniques. It isn't super dogmatic. At the end of the day, it's all about the actual experience or realization you get.

To me, the Advaita gurus who have actually had a Nirvikalpa experience are the ultimate authorities. But yeah, certain pandits and brahmans can also be experts in specific areas they've managed to realize.

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.🙂

As far as I am concerned, there aren't really any "big" or "small" authorities... anyone who actually possesses lived experience or has achieved tangible results is an authority in my eyes.
Of course, one could argue the merits of Advaita versus Dvaita, but I wouldn't dream of passing judgment on which perspective holds more weight. Religion, much like humanity itself, is incredibly diverse.
Personally, I find myself leaning more toward the principles of Dvaita, though I certainly don't believe everyone needs to follow that same path.

bluemason3 said: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.🙂

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.

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.

It is truly vital that you act as the ultimate authority and the flawless judge, not just regarding someone else's spiritual growth, but their mental health as well 🤣
I mean, simply impressive... nothing more to say 🙏

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.

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!

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!

👍
beautifully stated

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...

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.

Not even if they were Hitler?

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Not even if they were Hitler?

Hitler what? He might have labeled someone else, but was he actually a spiritual figure? That first part is certainly true, but the second is absolutely not.

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...

Andrew Sanchez572 said: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...

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?

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...

Andrew Sanchez572 said:I follow that logic, certainly, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't condemn his actions...

Are you actually equating Vivekananda with Hitler?

Not quite
what about you?