Vedic Authorities?

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Not quite
what about you?

What happened to all that "reverence" you have for Satan and his glorious light?

I'm genuinely curious—how do you even attempt to mentally reconcile a guru, Prabhupada, the Vedanta, chanting... and Satan?

🙂

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Not quite
what about you?

Absolutely not. That's precisely why I can't bring myself to sympathize when people dismiss him as a nobody. I'm talking about Swami Vivekananda.

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.

Amanda Roberts21 said:What happened to all that "reverence" you have for Satan and his glorious light?

I'm genuinely curious—how do you even attempt to mentally reconcile a guru, Prabhupada, the Vedanta, chanting... and Satan?

🙂

Why on earth would I try to reconcile all of that?
You forgot to include Adolf Hitler in your list...

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.

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... 🤷

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.

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.

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 😉

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.

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... 🙄

Andrew Sanchez572 said: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.

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...

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.😁

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?

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...

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.

I mean, I reckon a guru is totally free from any biases or whatever, but if they actually want to get stuff done—or even just have some "desires" to stay grounded at this level—they’ve gotta play by the rules of society. It's kind of like how they'll take on all the messy, chaotic baggage from their followers just to help speed up everyone's progress.
Swami Vivekananda once mentioned that out of eight enlightened souls, only one usually takes on students, and even then, only if they're "crazy enough" to do it.

Andrew Sanchez572 said: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...

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?

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...

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 😉

Do you actually know how to work through divisional charts and calculate these kids' avatar placements?