Vedic Authorities?

darkmason4 said:It absolutely holds true. At the start of May, I spent a week at a japa retreat on Maui with Sacinandan Swami.
I’ve honestly never felt such intense spiritual power and energy in my life—and that’s mostly thanks to him. It was easily the best seven days of my life!
When Sacinandan is nearby, you can really see that the process works and that we're on the right track. Not only does it work, but it’s so incredibly potent that it constantly exceeds my expectations, "breaking through" material consciousness much faster than I think I could handle. During that retreat, I had this unmistakable feeling that there wasn't a better place on Earth to be for spiritual growth and practicing the japa technique.

A little over two years.

Just hold on for a few more 😉

darkmason4 said:Do you actually have a quote somewhere where SP called Vivekananda and Ramakrishna Paramahansa scoundrels??!

I don't have it right in front of me at the moment, but I am absolutely certain I've read it (I'm not old enough to be senile and hallucinating 😁 ). He used terms even harsher than that. And it wasn't just them—other Gaudiya figures like Radhakunda Babaji were targeted too. Even the practice of siddha pranali was criticized, following the same line of thought as Bhaktisiddhanta's critiques... which isn't surprising given that Bhaktivinoda supported it, and he was Bhaktisiddhanta's brother. By the way, Bhaktisiddhanta actually viewed him as a demon—basically a deceased negative influence from Bhaktivinoda's past coming back to haunt him as a son 😁. Look, there are so many strange games played in India that it isn't really wise to take anything at face value. Of course, that's natural, and maybe even necessary if we are part of a specific lineage. But it isn't necessarily objective; most things exist in a gray area between black and white. Honestly, that was the main thing that rubbed me the wrong way at first, though I recognize there are cultural differences and linguistic barriers involved... regardless, the way he dealt so bluntly, albeit verbally, with all kinds of "heretics" is impossible to deny. It doesn't prove anything spiritually, either. Many saints (take St. Francis, for example) in various religions were quite narrow-minded regarding their own perfection versus the errors of others. I don't doubt someone can be just as spiritually advanced because of it—maybe it even helps with focus—but personally, I find it hard to swallow.

darkmason4 said:I’m not trying to play devil's advocate here—that's not really what this space is for—but if there's anyone in the last century who truly mastered the art of being arrogant, it was definitely A.C.B.S.P.
Honestly, I don't think I've ever met anyone more humble in my entire life.
His incredible success is clear proof of the special mission God has set for him, along with every bit of help provided to ensure the movement continues to grow.

Look, my experience has been the exact opposite. I’ve talked to plenty of devotees, and everyone was incredibly happy and fulfilled about dedicating their best years to the mission.
By the way, what does "sacrifice" actually mean? I bet people did it because they truly found joy in the act, rather than out of some heavy suffering—otherwise, it would just be plain depressing.

This isn't just some "pseudo-spiritual" phase; it’s a genuinely powerful journey toward self-discovery. However, it can easily devolve into something hollow if you don't have the right guidance or the common sense to tell the difference between the real deal and a cheap imitation. There's a massive gap between a true devotee with a huge heart and that arrogant, book-smart egoist who calls himself a devotee—the kind of person who spends their morning hating themselves and their afternoon hating the entire world.

It isn't really the process that’s at fault here; it's more about a lack of flexibility and failing to pick the right mindset.
It’s like someone landing at a powerhouse like Google, only to burn every bridge because they couldn't tell the difference between the high performers and the toxic types. They’d eventually walk out the door trashing the whole company, even if their own performance reviews were absolutely stellar.

I’m really sorry you had to go through that. I know exactly what it feels like to be stuck in limbo—not quite reaching your spiritual goals, yet feeling disconnected from everything else, too. It’s like being caught in a tug-of-war between heaven and earth where you just can't find your footing. Fortunately, I managed to find my way out of that funk pretty quickly.

I really believe that at ISKCON, the most vital thing is for a person to be brutally honest with themselves: do they truly want to commit to the 100% monastic life as a monk, or would they rather serve within the congregation?
I could never pull off that first lifestyle; I’d probably lose my mind within six months and end up in a psychiatric ward. It was clear to me right away that my physical, emotional, and mental makeup just isn't wired for that kind of thing.

As far as community involvement goes, the congregation model is definitely the sweet spot for me.
I’ve got my own life, my wife, my kids, and my hobbies to balance out.
I head to programs a few times a week to get inspired, and that’s really all there is to it. It’s like hitting the local aikido studio three or four times a week. I haven't neglected the material side of things either, because I know how vital it is—ultimately, it serves as the foundation that supports my spiritual life.
You need a chair with more than just two legs to stay balanced.
My rule of thumb is to take what resonates with who I am from any group, and just let the rest slide. Otherwise, you're just creating unnecessary friction and drama in your own head.

I don't quite follow. On one hand, the facts don't really show him being in a rage or acting negative, so he doesn't come across as particularly arrogant. But then there's that ease of judgment—that philosophy suggesting we can just exploit karma, or the idea that devotees are somehow slightly above the rules. Not literally, obviously, but there was that attitude of mocking karma, almost like devotees are doing such important work that they can mess with a karma's lunch... like that episode a devotee mentioned recently—I can't recall exactly—about him standing up on a plane when you're supposed to be buckled in, acting like he's above those little constraints. I don't know... it just sits weird with me. And isn't it true that Tridandi isn't saying we should only be polite to other Vaishnavas, but that we should treat everyone with respect? Isn't ignoring that the very foundation of Vaishnava ethics?

So, what I'm saying is it would probably be easier to take someone like Sacinandan or Smit Krishn as teachers than to challenge SP himself or his guru. Then again, there are side issues at play; there's always politics. Besides, within this tiny slice of Gaudiya Vaishnavism alone, there are so many different traditions and lineages, let alone the entirety of humanity's spiritual history. We all have different tastes, temperaments, and ways of judging things. But honestly, I just don't care for it when people spend so much time tearing others down.

bluemason3 said:But look... it’s all a matter of personal perspective. I was among the first to read Prabhupada's books (back in middle school, I think), and I picked up others later on. I even used to head out to San Francisco or visit the temple back in the '90s... but I never really took any of it seriously until I stumbled upon information about Gaudiya Vaishnavism from entirely different sources. I could imagine myself as a Vaishnava, but certainly not as an ISKCON devotee, a Gaudiya Math follower, or some eccentric "Saraswata" following the "reformed" line of Bhaktisiddhanta. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for SP for bringing such a serious approach to the West during the hippie era (though some of that carried over into ISKCON later), and he definitely deserves respect as a Vaishnava. It’s always nice to run into devotees or occasionally find myself at a temple, but personally, it just doesn't pull me in, and those books leave me feeling pretty cold. 😳 🤷

So, you can't make sweeping generalizations. Some fish bite at one kind of hook, while others prefer a different bait.

What counts as "ideal" or "correct" is also pretty relative...

bluemason3, I’m right there with you.
My spiritual path didn't actually kick off with SP's books either. My journey started about seven years before I ever joined the movement, and that period really shaped who I am and what I choose to accept or reject later on.
By the time I arrived at ISKCON, I already had a solid foundation in the Vedas, various spiritual realizations (mostly earned through hardship), and a spiritual guide whose teachings are universal. Because of that, fitting in was relatively easy.
Even now, I'm not just sitting idly by; I'm involved in several other groups that are connected to spirituality in one way or another.

All of this gives me the confidence that ISKCON won't break me, because my foundation isn't built on them. Instead, it rests on those earlier foundations, other organizations, a stable financial situation, and my college education.

Honestly, I never would have joined ISKCON or understood any of this if it weren't for that background. I've never had much patience for fake priests, false authorities, or a militant atmosphere. But for the sake of Krishna, SP, and the other wonderful teachers in the movement, I decided to take what works and simply ignore the rest. And if I have to—meaning, if I face personal attacks—I'll push back with that same energy without holding back.
So far, it's worked out fine—I haven't had bad experiences, just minor misunderstandings... I don't know, maybe my athletic build intimidates people... 😛

darkmason4 said:bluemason3, I’m right there with you.
My spiritual path didn't actually kick off with SP's books either. My journey started about seven years before I ever joined the movement, and that period really shaped who I am and what I choose to accept or reject later on.
By the time I arrived at ISKCON, I already had a solid foundation in the Vedas, various spiritual realizations (mostly earned through hardship), and a spiritual guide whose teachings are universal. Because of that, fitting in was relatively easy.
Even now, I'm not just sitting idly by; I'm involved in several other groups that are connected to spirituality in one way or another.

All of this gives me the confidence that ISKCON won't break me, because my foundation isn't built on them. Instead, it rests on those earlier foundations, other organizations, a stable financial situation, and my college education.

Honestly, I never would have joined ISKCON or understood any of this if it weren't for that background. I've never had much patience for fake priests, false authorities, or a militant atmosphere. But for the sake of Krishna, SP, and the other wonderful teachers in the movement, I decided to take what works and simply ignore the rest. And if I have to—meaning, if I face personal attacks—I'll push back with that same energy without holding back.
So far, it's worked out fine—I haven't had bad experiences, just minor misunderstandings... I don't know, maybe my athletic build intimidates people... 😛

🤣
well, I suppose we shall see each other tomorrow at Janmashtami 😉

bluemason3 said:I don't have it right in front of me at the moment, but I am absolutely certain I've read it (I'm not old enough to be senile and hallucinating 😁 ). He used terms even harsher than that. And it wasn't just them—other Gaudiya figures like Radhakunda Babaji were targeted too. Even the practice of siddha pranali was criticized, following the same line of thought as Bhaktisiddhanta's critiques... which isn't surprising given that Bhaktivinoda supported it, and he was Bhaktisiddhanta's brother. By the way, Bhaktisiddhanta actually viewed him as a demon—basically a deceased negative influence from Bhaktivinoda's past coming back to haunt him as a son 😁. Look, there are so many strange games played in India that it isn't really wise to take anything at face value. Of course, that's natural, and maybe even necessary if we are part of a specific lineage. But it isn't necessarily objective; most things exist in a gray area between black and white. Honestly, that was the main thing that rubbed me the wrong way at first, though I recognize there are cultural differences and linguistic barriers involved... regardless, the way he dealt so bluntly, albeit verbally, with all kinds of "heretics" is impossible to deny. It doesn't prove anything spiritually, either. Many saints (take St. Francis, for example) in various religions were quite narrow-minded regarding their own perfection versus the errors of others. I don't doubt someone can be just as spiritually advanced because of it—maybe it even helps with focus—but personally, I find it hard to swallow.

Anyway, the RKM was expanding rapidly in the same region (Bengal) at the exact same time Bhaktisiddhanta was active. It seems like conflicts of interest or territorial disputes often led to provocations and uncomfortable comments. Unfortunately, so far, I've only run into them from the Gaudiya side, not from the RKM side yet. That says something, I suppose. It doesn't mean they weren't there; maybe the RKM folks just haven't made their mistakes public yet. I don't know.

darkmason4 said:bluemason3, I’m right there with you.
My spiritual path didn't actually kick off with SP's books either. My journey started about seven years before I ever joined the movement, and that period really shaped who I am and what I choose to accept or reject later on.
By the time I arrived at ISKCON, I already had a solid foundation in the Vedas, various spiritual realizations (mostly earned through hardship), and a spiritual guide whose teachings are universal. Because of that, fitting in was relatively easy.
Even now, I'm not just sitting idly by; I'm involved in several other groups that are connected to spirituality in one way or another.

All of this gives me the confidence that ISKCON won't break me, because my foundation isn't built on them. Instead, it rests on those earlier foundations, other organizations, a stable financial situation, and my college education.

Honestly, I never would have joined ISKCON or understood any of this if it weren't for that background. I've never had much patience for fake priests, false authorities, or a militant atmosphere. But for the sake of Krishna, SP, and the other wonderful teachers in the movement, I decided to take what works and simply ignore the rest. And if I have to—meaning, if I face personal attacks—I'll push back with that same energy without holding back.
So far, it's worked out fine—I haven't had bad experiences, just minor misunderstandings... I don't know, maybe my athletic build intimidates people... 😛

🤣

In person, major misunderstandings rarely happen. It’s honestly embarrassing how much we overthink things and try to act all high and mighty 😬

But hey, that’s why the forum exists 😂

..Alright, let me throw out a totally naive question here... what's everyone's take on
?
Sai Baba🤷🤷

brightstag43 said:..Alright, let me throw out a totally naive question here... what's everyone's take on
?
Sai Baba🤷🤷

Babu? There's too much smoke for there not to be a fire, but since none of us have been sexually exploited or personally witnessed any fake materializations (and you can't exactly trust the legal system or police in India), what can we actually say for sure? I'd venture to say it isn't what he claims to be... but is he some kind of (failed) yogi, just an ordinary magician and manipulator, or perhaps someone possessed or even an alien? 🤷 🤣

Within ISKCON, they've adopted an initiation system that's quite different from other Gaudiya Vaishnava lineages. It even diverges from the standards set by the Gaudiya Math, which is the organization Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada actually came from.

In ISKCON, the first initiation is treated as the big one. The second one—which some call brahmana initiation—is basically just secondary, I guess, and isn't considered essential. But if you look at the Gaudiya Math, they have Harinama initiation and Diksha initiation. In that case, Diksha is the main event, and you receive the brahmana thread during that process, much like in ISKCON. As someone else already pointed out, brahmana initiation wasn't really a thing in Gaudiya Vaishnavism until Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati introduced the change when he established the Gaudiya Math.

Beyond ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math, there are other Gaudiya Vaishnava groups—the so-called traditional Gaudiya lines—that follow a totally different setup. First, there's Harinama, which isn't even technically considered a full initiation. That’s just when a guru gives a potential student instructions to chant the Maha Mantra along with some other guidance. The student then tracks their own progress based on those instructions; if they're happy with how things are going, they take diksha. If not, they might just move on to a different guru and test them out the same way. In these traditional lines, people don't undergo brahmana initiation—mostly because Vaishnavas don't want to put themselves on a pedestal above anyone else, I suppose. So, you have Harinama, then diksha, and eventually, after some time, siddha pranali, where the guru reveals the eternal relationship between the student, themselves, and Krishna.

mistygull16 said:Can I ask a quick, maybe slightly ungrateful question?
Since you used to hang out with those old Krishna followers way more than I did—and trust me, I was a regular at their place too—I’ve been wondering how anyone actually becomes a mentor. From what I gather, there were a few of them in the organization, but some fell from grace, right? Did things get messy? And did they become mentors because of some deep spiritual breakthrough, like reaching samadhi, or was it just based on something else entirely?
It always felt kind of silly to me when people said someone just picked up a bunch of students and then suddenly crashed and burned!
Or was being a mentor basically just synonymous with knowing the philosophy inside and out?
I remember hearing a lot of praise for a Vishnupad, and apparently, after he had this specific experience, he started identifying himself as Krishna—or so I heard.
Now, according to Advaita, that would be a pretty great sign, but for those Krishna folks, that's about as bad as it gets.
Also, back when I used to visit them about 15 years ago in Cleveland, there was this one bhakta—I think his name was dervendra-sigurno, though I might have butchered the spelling—who I see now has his own Christian-Vaishnava community and his own following. He was always going on about the ecstasy he felt whenever he chanted a mantra or sang a bhajan. Man, those guys were really something... makes me feel a bit nostalgic just thinking about it.
Anyway, in Advaita, you don't just become a mentor overnight. You practically have to be born an enlightened soul to inherit the lineage. At least, that's my take on it.

Actually, nobody has answered this yet, so even though I'm not part of that organization, I think I know how it works.

The GBC (Governing Body Commission) selects the gurus. The selection process relies on several key parameters. A potential guru needs support from their local community, shouldn't have any scandals on their record for at least the last 10 years, must represent the teachings of Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, stay loyal to the GBC, and so on. It's all laid out in a document called the "GBC law book."

So, I guess nobody can really guarantee that those declared as gurus are self-realized, or that they won't leave or do something contrary to Vaishnava rules down the road. People usually assume someone in a guru position was chosen because they are self-realized, but in many cases, that just isn't the case.

granitebadger23 said:Actually, nobody has answered this yet, so even though I'm not part of that organization, I think I know how it works.

The GBC (Governing Body Commission) selects the gurus. The selection process relies on several key parameters. A potential guru needs support from their local community, shouldn't have any scandals on their record for at least the last 10 years, must represent the teachings of Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, stay loyal to the GBC, and so on. It's all laid out in a document called the "GBC law book."

So, I guess nobody can really guarantee that those declared as gurus are self-realized, or that they won't leave or do something contrary to Vaishnava rules down the road. People usually assume someone in a guru position was chosen because they are self-realized, but in many cases, that just isn't the case.

True, but everyone has to find that for themselves. I think what ISKCON is doing is about as much as an organization can actually do... just look at a church or any other religious group, old or new...

It's true that Bhaktivedanta Swami wasn't afraid to use the word "rascal." Here are just a few examples. I'll leave them in English since I can't be bothered to translate...

"Can you find out? But these people, they have become more learned than Krishna. In our country, Vivekananda: daridra-nārāyana-sevā. The whole Ramakrishna Mission is collecting funds only on this rascal plea." (Lecture - Japan, April 22, 1972)

Actually, this excerpt from a discussion with a student shows that attitude even more aggressively. I don't want to judge someone's enlightenment or spiritual progress based solely on their use of harsh language, but I definitely agree that many would be offended by such insults, which casts serious doubt on the enlightenment of anyone saying such things.

"Anyone who has no trace of Krishna consciousness, he is a rascal. There is our challenge. (indistinct) He may be a great philosopher, a religionist—he is a rascal, degree only. Cent percent rascal, or maybe ninety percent rascal, or seventy percent rascal, but they’re all rascals. The same example: stool, this side and that side. Because the upside of stool is dried up, you cannot say, “It is very nice.” And they’re all stool. Anyone who is not Krishna conscious, who does not know the science of Krishna, he’s useless." (Philosophy Discussions with Syamasundara dasa)

This is really just a tiny fraction of what can be found. To be honest, even though I follow Vaishnavism, I really don't like hearing others being insulted like that when they aren't part of the movement.

granitebadger23 said:Greetings to you too. It’s hard to miss your writing style. 😁 😂

😳 😛

P.S. I'm not quite sure how to take this 🤣

P.P.S. Does anyone know anything about the SM in Pula? Was he in the mix this month?

bluemason3 said:True, but everyone has to find that for themselves. I think what ISKCON is doing is about as much as an organization can actually do... just look at a church or any other religious group, old or new...

I agree. The only real issue is that most people who accept a guru aren't told how this works, so they end up totally blindsided when a guru does something scandalous or just leaves.

bluemason3 said:😳 😛

P.S. I'm not quite sure how to take this 🤣

P.P.S. Does anyone know anything about the SM in Pula? Was he in the mix this month?

Don't sweat it, it was positive. Honestly, just as you probably figured out who I was from my writing style, I figured you out immediately too. 😁

bluemason3 said:😳 😛

P.S. I'm not quite sure how to take this 🤣

P.P.S. Does anyone know anything about the SM in Pula? Was he in the mix this month?

Unfortunately, he couldn't make it. He'll probably be heading to Vienna at the end of the month, and he'll definitely be back in the US next year.

granitebadger23 said:Don't sweat it, it was positive. Honestly, just as you probably figured out who I was from my writing style, I figured you out immediately too. 😁

Unfortunately, he couldn't make it. He'll probably be heading to Vienna at the end of the month, and he'll definitely be back in the US next year.

It wasn't the style (it is just one post, after all), but rather the content. There isn't much Gaudiya tradition around here. 😬

A real shame...

darkmason4 said:I’m not trying to play devil's advocate here—that's not really what this space is for—but if there's anyone in the last century who truly mastered the art of being arrogant, it was definitely A.C.B.S.P.
Honestly, I don't think I've ever met anyone more humble in my entire life.
His incredible success is clear proof of the special mission God has set for him, along with every bit of help provided to ensure the movement continues to grow.

Look, my experience has been the exact opposite. I’ve talked to plenty of devotees, and everyone was incredibly happy and fulfilled about dedicating their best years to the mission.
By the way, what does "sacrifice" actually mean? I bet people did it because they truly found joy in the act, rather than out of some heavy suffering—otherwise, it would just be plain depressing.

This isn't just some "pseudo-spiritual" phase; it’s a genuinely powerful journey toward self-discovery. However, it can easily devolve into something hollow if you don't have the right guidance or the common sense to tell the difference between the real deal and a cheap imitation. There's a massive gap between a true devotee with a huge heart and that arrogant, book-smart egoist who calls himself a devotee—the kind of person who spends their morning hating themselves and their afternoon hating the entire world.

It isn't really the process that’s at fault here; it's more about a lack of flexibility and failing to pick the right mindset.
It’s like someone landing at a powerhouse like Google, only to burn every bridge because they couldn't tell the difference between the high performers and the toxic types. They’d eventually walk out the door trashing the whole company, even if their own performance reviews were absolutely stellar.

I’m really sorry you had to go through that. I know exactly what it feels like to be stuck in limbo—not quite reaching your spiritual goals, yet feeling disconnected from everything else, too. It’s like being caught in a tug-of-war between heaven and earth where you just can't find your footing. Fortunately, I managed to find my way out of that funk pretty quickly.

I really believe that at ISKCON, the most vital thing is for a person to be brutally honest with themselves: do they truly want to commit to the 100% monastic life as a monk, or would they rather serve within the congregation?
I could never pull off that first lifestyle; I’d probably lose my mind within six months and end up in a psychiatric ward. It was clear to me right away that my physical, emotional, and mental makeup just isn't wired for that kind of thing.

As far as community involvement goes, the congregation model is definitely the sweet spot for me.
I’ve got my own life, my wife, my kids, and my hobbies to balance out.
I head to programs a few times a week to get inspired, and that’s really all there is to it. It’s like hitting the local aikido studio three or four times a week. I haven't neglected the material side of things either, because I know how vital it is—ultimately, it serves as the foundation that supports my spiritual life.
You need a chair with more than just two legs to stay balanced.
My rule of thumb is to take what resonates with who I am from any group, and just let the rest slide. Otherwise, you're just creating unnecessary friction and drama in your own head.

Actually, you find both types. The thing is, it's hard to talk to the ones who got "burned out" because they don't show up to the temple or the programs anymore. Generally speaking (if we're looking at our part of the US), this involves a huge number of former students from Harikes' era, back when things were truly fanatic. When Harikes left ISKCON, a lot of people were disillusioned and lost faith in the process. It might seem strange to people today, but times were different then, and the view of the guru wasn't what it is now. For them, the guru was practically Krishna himself; that’s just how they were taught. Today, the whole dynamic is completely different.

As for relationships with other Vaishnavas, unfortunately, not much has changed within ISKCON. The "Siksa outside ISKCON" book published a few years ago points to this, and I have some personal experiences to back it up too. This is something ISKCON in the US still has a lot of work to do on.

granitebadger23 said:Actually, nobody has answered this yet, so even though I'm not part of that organization, I think I know how it works.

The GBC (Governing Body Commission) selects the gurus. The selection process relies on several key parameters. A potential guru needs support from their local community, shouldn't have any scandals on their record for at least the last 10 years, must represent the teachings of Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, stay loyal to the GBC, and so on. It's all laid out in a document called the "GBC law book."

So, I guess nobody can really guarantee that those declared as gurus are self-realized, or that they won't leave or do something contrary to Vaishnava rules down the road. People usually assume someone in a guru position was chosen because they are self-realized, but in many cases, that just isn't the case.

I am. Though, clearly, I tend to go unnoticed. 😁

Andrew Sanchez572 said:I am. Though, clearly, I tend to go unnoticed. 😁

Don't worry, you were definitely noticed. 😍

It's just that you gave a broad answer typical for the Vaishnava world, whereas the question was specifically about ISKCON. In this case, the Governing Body Commission is the one that decides who gets to be a guru or not.