Vedic Authorities?

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?

@pukovnikz, I am inclined to agree with you... ☕

Andrew Sanchez572 said: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...

There’s probably a way to verify that too; I just haven't figured out the method yet.😢

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...

Andrew Sanchez572 said: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... 🙄

It feels a bit off for a religion where the entire focus rests on the few direct instructions left by the most revered avatar and founder of ISKCON. It isn't just the way he dismissed people, but his general attitude toward anyone outside his own circle—referring to laypeople as "Karimya," or looking down on secular authorities and society at large. That’s probably the only real critique I have. Ideological debates aside, and since he didn't have the kind of scandals that sank so many other Indian gurus, this remains a significant point personally, especially after his passing. That sense of superiority and lack of accountability is, in my view, one of the main reasons everything turned into such a circus at ISKCON after he died.

Andrew Sanchez572 said: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...

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...

Andrew Sanchez572 said: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?

Brahminical initiation is a pretty stretched concept, at least according to the literature. From the debates I've seen where both sides actually know their stuff, those arguing against such initiations always had much stronger explanations and more scriptural backing. Beyond that, the initiations presented by the Prabhupada and Bhaktisidhanta lineage aren't the original Gaudiya tradition; they're modified. In the original texts, there’s no mention of brahminical initiations, nor any first or second initiations. You have harinam—which isn't guru diksha and can be received from various people until you choose a guru—and then you have guru diksha. It's a matter of social status that doesn't actually change who you are. So, these first and second initiations, along with the brahminical ones, are relatively modern "inventions," and I won't be the judge of how real they are. One thing is certain: neither Gauranga, nor his followers, nor Goswamiji, nor anyone prior to Bhaktisidhanta practiced them.

George Thomas2 said:There’s probably a way to verify that too; I just haven't figured out the method yet.😢

Are you talking about a birth date? You can cross-reference it using other major life events, though it's all basically an estimate.

Well, you see, the first initiation is Harinam, followed by the second, which is Brahmana.
There simply isn't a third one...🤷

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?

bluemason3 said:Are you talking about a birth date? You can cross-reference it using other major life events, though it's all basically an estimate.

No, that wasn't my point. I was asking if there's some alternative method for verifying a Jyotish avatar.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Well, you see, the first initiation is Harinam, followed by the second, which is Brahmana.
There simply isn't a third one...🤷

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.

Andrew Sanchez572 said: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?

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...

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: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: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.

I'm trying to stick to our usual deep-dive topics, and honestly, I think being in the West gives us a better vantage point for looking at Vedanta—at least, that's my two cents.
The reason I keep insisting that Advaita sits above duality is because, well, every religion is inherently dualistic. Even people calling themselves Advaitins often treat God as some external entity in their daily lives. Real Advaita should kick in after saguna samadhi (where there's still a "me" and a "God") and lead into the experience of nirguna samadhi—where names and forms just evaporate and you're left with pure sat-chid-ananda existence.
Now, someone could always argue there are even higher transcendental forms or whatever, etc., etc.
Prabhupada mentioned that souls merged with Brahman eventually return, but you don't really see testimonies for that kind of thing. Every religion basically claims that after their version of nirguna, their specific version of Heaven kicks in, which just puts us right back at square one.
But hey, I guess we can all agree we don't need to lose sleep over these heavy questions. We should only dive in as much as actually inspires us.
At the end of the day, we can all pretty much agree that God is Love.

Andrew Sanchez572 said: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...

I get that’s how they do things at ISKCON, but I’m just saying it isn't really traditional. It’s more of a Bhaktisiddhanta interpretation, which hasn't always been the standard practice and isn't exactly backed up by the ancient texts. Even Gauranga himself would often choose to eat food from Brahmins nearby rather than from his own advanced students, mostly out of respect for social norms. He was pretty clear about following those standards. So, there aren't many strong arguments to use here. Then again, it all comes down to ideology and interpretation, and arguing over that feels a bit pointless. To me, the real issue is practical. If we're measuring how well a system works, the biggest flaw seems to be this lack of humility—that tendency to act superior toward anyone outside the fold.

bluemason3 said: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.

Fine, maybe I went a bit overboard—admitting things were "sparse" was probably too much... 🙄

But honestly, my heart breaks for certain friends of mine who joined them—people I lost entirely because of this cult. I have watched whole families fall apart over Hare Krishna, seen brilliant, capable people lose all touch with reality, and witnessed mothers handing their children over to these guru-led schools that were nothing more than breeding grounds for predators. I've seen marriages end because of their rigid little rules, seen beautiful women turn themselves into miserable shadows just scavenging for cookie crumbs, and watched intellectuals humiliate themselves selling books just to fund those temples. It’s devastating to see smart, unhappy people stuck in this gray limbo—neither here nor there. I’ve seen it all firsthand, which is why I think the old man was dangerous—and yeah, maybe I get a little heated when it comes to this movement...

There is this one video of his on YouTube from a TV appearance where he makes several shallow statements, including:


you need to REALIZE God and TRY to love Him

That single sentence tells you everything you need to know about his mindset. To him, knowing God is just a matter of information—it's a mental exercise, a matter of KNOWLEDGE—whereas love is treated as a mere act of WILL. That is the entire movement in a nutshell: built entirely on HIS WORDS and His commands, pretending to LOVE while they actually despise anything that isn't them.

mistygull16 said:I'm trying to stick to our usual deep-dive topics, and honestly, I think being in the West gives us a better vantage point for looking at Vedanta—at least, that's my two cents.
The reason I keep insisting that Advaita sits above duality is because, well, every religion is inherently dualistic. Even people calling themselves Advaitins often treat God as some external entity in their daily lives. Real Advaita should kick in after saguna samadhi (where there's still a "me" and a "God") and lead into the experience of nirguna samadhi—where names and forms just evaporate and you're left with pure sat-chid-ananda existence.
Now, someone could always argue there are even higher transcendental forms or whatever, etc., etc.
Prabhupada mentioned that souls merged with Brahman eventually return, but you don't really see testimonies for that kind of thing. Every religion basically claims that after their version of nirguna, their specific version of Heaven kicks in, which just puts us right back at square one.
But hey, I guess we can all agree we don't need to lose sleep over these heavy questions. We should only dive in as much as actually inspires us.
At the end of the day, we can all pretty much agree that God is Love.

Look, these debates have been going on forever, and we’re never going to reach some absolute finality. It's worth noting that the other two schools are younger and emerged specifically to challenge Shankara. You can't just dismiss them as inferior; they wouldn't have even gained traction if they hadn't successfully contested the older Shankara traditions, much like how he famously held his own against the Buddhists of his era. It's just that most of us in America aren't deeply versed in Hindu traditions, Sanskrit, or the nuances required to dive into the heavy lifting. That makes Advaita feel much more accessible to us—it's intellectual, easy to grasp, and simple to present outside of its original context.

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...

Amanda Roberts21 said:Fine, maybe I went a bit overboard—admitting things were "sparse" was probably too much... 🙄

But honestly, my heart breaks for certain friends of mine who joined them—people I lost entirely because of this cult. I have watched whole families fall apart over Hare Krishna, seen brilliant, capable people lose all touch with reality, and witnessed mothers handing their children over to these guru-led schools that were nothing more than breeding grounds for predators. I've seen marriages end because of their rigid little rules, seen beautiful women turn themselves into miserable shadows just scavenging for cookie crumbs, and watched intellectuals humiliate themselves selling books just to fund those temples. It’s devastating to see smart, unhappy people stuck in this gray limbo—neither here nor there. I’ve seen it all firsthand, which is why I think the old man was dangerous—and yeah, maybe I get a little heated when it comes to this movement...

There is this one video of his on YouTube from a TV appearance where he makes several shallow statements, including:


you need to REALIZE God and TRY to love Him

That single sentence tells you everything you need to know about his mindset. To him, knowing God is just a matter of information—it's a mental exercise, a matter of KNOWLEDGE—whereas love is treated as a mere act of WILL. That is the entire movement in a nutshell: built entirely on HIS WORDS and His commands, pretending to LOVE while they actually despise anything that isn't them.

Like I said, I think he made some wrong moves, but the real circus started after he died. The "inner circle" that took over often pushed aside long-time, direct students of SPD. For instance, that specific guru school you mentioned wasn't originally run by those "monks" who were later convicted; it was managed by a couple appointed by SPD itself. But once he passed, the new crowd ousted them. So, nothing is purely black or white. I'll say again: his specific worldview likely fueled an arrogance that eventually led to manipulation and irresponsibility, but I don't think there was anything inherently evil or malicious in his core. I can't say the same for some of the second-generation leaders.