Vedic Authorities?

granitebadger23 said: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.

So, you all actually noticed me... 😍

granitebadger23 said: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.

Actually, I'm not entirely sure how things work on a broader scale within the Vaishnava community, since my experience and knowledge have been almost exclusively limited to ISKCON, but that's alright. Your perspective really helped complete the picture... 👍

Andrew Sanchez572 said:So, you all actually noticed me... 😍

Actually, I'm not entirely sure how things work on a broader scale within the Vaishnava community, since my experience and knowledge have been almost exclusively limited to ISKCON, but that's alright. Your perspective really helped complete the picture... 👍

Ideally, a guru shouldn't even need a recommendation; they should just stand out through their own enlightenment. We're talking about someone at the uttama-adhikari level—someone fully realized with a direct connection to Krishna. Swami Prabhupada addresses this in Nectar of Instruction, verse 5.

"One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the platform of uttama-adhikari. A neophyte Vaisnava or a Vaisnava situated on the intermediate platform can also accept disciples, but such disciples must be on the same platform, and it should be understood that they cannot advance very well toward the ultimate goal of life under his insufficient guidance. Therefore a disciple should be careful to accept an uttama-adhikari as a spiritual master."

A guru of that caliber would naturally draw others to worship Krishna just by being there. They’d give disciples the taste and strength to follow sadhana without struggling—especially the taste for the maha mantra. If anyone asks, they might even provide concrete proof of their enlightenment and connection to Krishna.

It's pretty obvious that large institutions can't select gurus based on these specific standards. If they did, there would be terribly few of them, or maybe none at all, if nobody actually met those requirements.

Yes, I believe even SP himself mentioned that we occasionally need to accept a madhyama adhikari as our guru. It isn't necessarily a catastrophe, provided we remain mindful that the vast majority of people are kanisthas, and most will likely only ever reach the level of a madhyama in a single lifetime...
It does, however, present certain complications, much like what we have observed within the history of ISKCON...

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Yes, I believe even SP himself mentioned that we occasionally need to accept a madhyama adhikari as our guru. It isn't necessarily a catastrophe, provided we remain mindful that the vast majority of people are kanisthas, and most will likely only ever reach the level of a madhyama in a single lifetime...
It does, however, present certain complications, much like what we have observed within the history of ISKCON...

Actually, it's the kanisthas—those still bogged down by material impressions—who arguably need an enlightened guru the most. A strong spiritual influence can pull them up to higher levels quite rapidly. Without that, they're stuck trying to purify themselves using only their own strength, which I guess could take forever. There's a reason SP emphasized being extremely careful to choose an uttama-adhikari as a guru. Sometimes, within large institutions, the importance of an uttama-adhikari guru is intentionally downplayed just so people don't go looking elsewhere when such teachers aren't available.

Oh, if there were a factory just pumping out Uttama Adhikaris right here in the States, I would certainly go ahead and pick up three of them immediately 😁
...

granitebadger23 As specified by:
Both types actually exist. The real issue is that once people get "burned out," they usually stop showing up to the temple or attending any programs at all. In our neck of the woods, it mostly comes down to a huge number of former students from Harikes Maharaj's era, back when things were truly fanatic.

I know exactly how that felt, and honestly, massive respect to everyone who stuck it out through those tough times! I actually know a Vaishnava who was a disciple of Harikes Maharaj; he went through that heavy period of losing his own guru, but he eventually found his footing again and took initiation from Sacinandan Swami.

If I had shown up at the doors of ISKCON back then, there wouldn't be any force on earth strong enough to convince me to stay, let alone try to make it work within an organization like that.
It’s all thanks to Krishna that I finally found my way here, even if it took a little longer than expected.

"Quote:"

When Harikes Maharaj left ISKCON, it hit a lot of people hard, causing many to lose faith in the whole movement. It might seem bizarre looking back from today's perspective, but times were different then, and the way people viewed a guru wasn't what it is now. Back then, they were taught to see the guru as almost being Krishna himself. Nowadays, that entire dynamic has shifted completely.

Everything you've laid out here is exactly what I've heard from the senior devotees over the years.

As for how we get along with other Vaishnavas, honestly, not much has changed within ISKCON. If you look at the "Siksa outside ISKCON" book published a few years back, it highlights exactly where the friction lies, and I’ve definitely felt that tension in my own life. It's an area where ISKCON here in the States still has some serious homework to do.

I have this little yellow booklet here. Even though the author isn't being overtly offensive to others, the whole vibe feels like they're preaching actual racial segregation laws and keeping everyone strictly separated... basically, I'm right there with you on this one.

The beauty of ISKCON today is that anyone looking to start their bhakti journey is met with such a massive variety of paths. It’s all about finding what resonates with you personally. Exactly. Once she truly identifies what she wants from her spiritual life, everything changes. That’s when the struggles fade away—no one will be able to drag her down or steer her destiny for her. But like I said, the first step is simply knowing that truth. Why? She finally arrived! What? He’s got to figure out how that all fits together. hers I'll be there.
It’s like looking at a wide spectrum: on one end, you have the more "liberal" influence—think of Bhakt Tirth Swami's vast library of books acting as a guide for spiritual instruction, or the approach taken by Sacinandan Swami. On the other side, you have the more traditionalist, heavyweight perspective represented by the BVKS and their circle.

Just to be clear, I’m not the one making this classification; BVKS actually refers to himself as a "heavy" guru on his own website. It seems like he's just being upfront, giving potential students a heads-up on exactly what they should expect if they decide to become his initiated disciples. Fair enough.

I’m 108% convinced that some people truly need a "heavyweight" guru in this lifetime—someone who steps in to firmly rein in material life and set clear boundaries like, "you can do this, but you can't do that." On the flip side, others definitely need someone who leads with ease, empathy, and a much softer touch.

I'm the kind of person who only ever finds myself drawn to the latter. 🙂

granitebadger23 said: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.

I actually tracked down this quote in the Vedabase myself. From what I can gather looking at the broader context (correct me if I'm off base here), Prabhupada isn't calling the members of the Ramakrishna Mission "rascals"—he's making a general point about the concept of philanthropy and those who champion it.

Even without using harsher language, I definitely agree that such labeling would offend many people and cast serious doubt on the enlightenment of anyone who would say something like that.

God works in mysterious ways... personally, I wouldn't say that particular style is the gold standard, but the fact remains that SP was uniquely empowered to lead the global success of ISKCON. It wasn't by accident that he was the one chosen.
On the other hand, he represents a very strict and isolated branch of the Vaishnava tradition that goes back generations. That specific lineage is the one that spread across the globe. His teacher was even more uncompromising. If I've learned anything so far, it's that people from this lineage's student heritage were determined to maintain total separation from everyone else at any cost. That explains those "isolationist" attitudes. Usually, I find it charming when SP uses the word "rascal" (even when he's talking about me!), but in this specific instance, it really doesn't sit right with me.

"Anyone who has no trace of Krishna consciousness, he is a rascal. There is our challenge. (indistinct) He may be great philosopher, 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)

It sounds pretty fanatical, but I think you could easily swap the word Krishna for God here. Prabhupada used Krishna as a synonym for God so frequently that he even used it when debating Christian theologians. He just got used to it.
If we replaced "Krishna" with "God" in this passage, everything makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Besides, didn't SP arrive in the USA in '65 right in the middle of the ultimate "rascal" crowd, preaching with love to people who were burning their brains out on LSD and sex? He didn't reject a single soul.

darkmason4 said:I actually tracked down this quote in the Vedabase myself. From what I can gather looking at the broader context (correct me if I'm off base here), Prabhupada isn't calling the members of the Ramakrishna Mission "rascals"—he's making a general point about the concept of philanthropy and those who champion it.

Even without using harsher language, I definitely agree that such labeling would offend many people and cast serious doubt on the enlightenment of anyone who would say something like that.

God works in mysterious ways... personally, I wouldn't say that particular style is the gold standard, but the fact remains that SP was uniquely empowered to lead the global success of ISKCON. It wasn't by accident that he was the one chosen.
On the other hand, he represents a very strict and isolated branch of the Vaishnava tradition that goes back generations. That specific lineage is the one that spread across the globe. His teacher was even more uncompromising. If I've learned anything so far, it's that people from this lineage's student heritage were determined to maintain total separation from everyone else at any cost. That explains those "isolationist" attitudes. Usually, I find it charming when SP uses the word "rascal" (even when he's talking about me!), but in this specific instance, it really doesn't sit right with me.

"Anyone who has no trace of Krishna consciousness, he is a rascal. There is our challenge. (indistinct) He may be great philosopher, 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)

It sounds pretty fanatical, but I think you could easily swap the word Krishna for God here. Prabhupada used Krishna as a synonym for God so frequently that he even used it when debating Christian theologians. He just got used to it.
If we replaced "Krishna" with "God" in this passage, everything makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Besides, didn't SP arrive in the USA in '65 right in the middle of the ultimate "rascal" crowd, preaching with love to people who were burning their brains out on LSD and sex? He didn't reject a single soul.

I wasn't even trying to bring up the tougher examples. But if you search "rascal" in Vedabase under lessons, lectures, conversations, or letters, you'll find those harder instances.

darkmason4 said:I actually tracked down this quote in the Vedabase myself. From what I can gather looking at the broader context (correct me if I'm off base here), Prabhupada isn't calling the members of the Ramakrishna Mission "rascals"—he's making a general point about the concept of philanthropy and those who champion it.

Even without using harsher language, I definitely agree that such labeling would offend many people and cast serious doubt on the enlightenment of anyone who would say something like that.

God works in mysterious ways... personally, I wouldn't say that particular style is the gold standard, but the fact remains that SP was uniquely empowered to lead the global success of ISKCON. It wasn't by accident that he was the one chosen.
On the other hand, he represents a very strict and isolated branch of the Vaishnava tradition that goes back generations. That specific lineage is the one that spread across the globe. His teacher was even more uncompromising. If I've learned anything so far, it's that people from this lineage's student heritage were determined to maintain total separation from everyone else at any cost. That explains those "isolationist" attitudes. Usually, I find it charming when SP uses the word "rascal" (even when he's talking about me!), but in this specific instance, it really doesn't sit right with me.

"Anyone who has no trace of Krishna consciousness, he is a rascal. There is our challenge. (indistinct) He may be great philosopher, 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)

It sounds pretty fanatical, but I think you could easily swap the word Krishna for God here. Prabhupada used Krishna as a synonym for God so frequently that he even used it when debating Christian theologians. He just got used to it.
If we replaced "Krishna" with "God" in this passage, everything makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Besides, didn't SP arrive in the USA in '65 right in the middle of the ultimate "rascal" crowd, preaching with love to people who were burning their brains out on LSD and sex? He didn't reject a single soul.

I'm actually pretty sure Prabhupada meant God there. Even so, I still don't like hearing someone called a rascal just because they don't believe in God, or because they're a scientist, or because they don't believe in a personal aspect of God. I guess I'd much rather see more positivity when addressing people with different views.

Every now and then, Prabhupada throws out terms like "scoundrels," "fools," or even worse when talking about Vaishnavas who aren't part of ISKCON. I mean, look at how he calls certain groups "black snakes," labels others as "babajis" or fools, or dismisses the practices of other Vaishnavas and monists as totally made up and idiotic. He’s said just about everything you can say about people like Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Gandhi, and Aurobindo—basically calling them all scoundrels directly.

On one hand, Prabhupada worked incredibly hard to spread Vaishnavism and wrote an enormous amount of books, which is why I really respect him. But on the other hand, he basically provoked followers of almost every other spiritual path by using those insults, which is something I just can't stomach.

It’s a bit... teenage 😁

Then again, this group probably had one of the lowest average ages of any religious organization out there 😁

But maybe that's why it paved the way for more serious things 😛 😁

SP had some pretty rough disagreements with his wife—which definitely shaped how he viewed women and "materialists" later on... I mean, she actually swapped out his favorite book for some tea once, and that was enough to make him walk out the door and never look back. He used to get on the nerves of his close friends because he’d just constantly talk about Krishna... and honestly, it's obvious he passed that right down to his disciples, most of whom struggle big time with their families at home. Plus, everyone around them loves to lecture people without even being asked—it's not that people don't want to talk about these things, but everything has its own time and place, and they just seem to lack any respect for that. People feel it, too... you can tell when someone isn't actually listening to you or caring about you, but is just waiting for an opening to dump their list of verses on you.

I have truly never encountered devotees quite like this before 😢
It seems there are certain individuals who simply lack any sense of social grace or effective communication skills, though I suppose those are just outliers, and you can find them in just about any corner of the country.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:I have truly never encountered devotees quite like this before 😢
It seems there are certain individuals who simply lack any sense of social grace or effective communication skills, though I suppose those are just outliers, and you can find them in just about any corner of the country.

I might agree that's mostly how it works today, but maybe ten or fifteen years ago, only a handful actually knew how to communicate. The rest were just waiting for a chance to roast someone or, if you want to put it bluntly, really get under their skin.😉

Back then, people called it "Hard Knock Life" or "healthy roasting."🙂🙂🙂🙂 😂

Hmm, I am actually referring to how things used to be back in the day. It has been quite a long time since I spent any regular time at the temple, so I cannot say for certain what the current atmosphere is like.
Generally speaking, the preaching tended to be much more intense, though it wasn't specifically targeted at those outside the movement; it felt more like an insider conversation meant for the core group...
🤷

'Mixing it up,' haha... I honestly forgot we even used that phrase 😂 you’re seriously such a far-out guru 🙏 😬😂

🙂

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Hmm, I am actually referring to how things used to be back in the day. It has been quite a long time since I spent any regular time at the temple, so I cannot say for certain what the current atmosphere is like.
Generally speaking, the preaching tended to be much more intense, though it wasn't specifically targeted at those outside the movement; it felt more like an insider conversation meant for the core group...
🤷

There was a time when you couldn't even grab a coffee in peace if there was a temple nearby.😬

bluemason3 said:There was a time when you couldn't even grab a coffee in peace if there was a temple nearby.😬

Oh, really? How on earth did I miss that part of history? I suppose I just wasn't drinking much coffee back then... 🤷

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Hmm, I am actually referring to how things used to be back in the day. It has been quite a long time since I spent any regular time at the temple, so I cannot say for certain what the current atmosphere is like.
Generally speaking, the preaching tended to be much more intense, though it wasn't specifically targeted at those outside the movement; it felt more like an insider conversation meant for the core group...
🤷

Yeah, no way... then it's obvious you weren't involved in those charity runs (or that whole "health wellness" harassment where people go door-to-door just to push books on them—it's honestly exhausting)... I remember being so stoked when I once managed to sell a whole set to Caitlyn Carter, but now I actually feel kind of guilty about it, knowing some folks gave up their last few dollars...

Aha, so that is what 😁
you think?
Well... I suppose I am.😂 I mean, you've got people out there hunting deer or whatever, while I'm over here busy dealing with vegetarian cookbooks...🤣😂

boldsailor2 said:Yeah, no way... then it's obvious you weren't involved in those charity runs (or that whole "health wellness" harassment where people go door-to-door just to push books on them—it's honestly exhausting)... I remember being so stoked when I once managed to sell a whole set to Caitlyn Carter, but now I actually feel kind of guilty about it, knowing some folks gave up their last few dollars...

Good people always wanted to help the "starving student"... such a hardworking guy, funding his tuition by selling books door-to-door. 😬

Looking back, it wasn't all bad. It was actually kind of nice when a Bhakta would stop by. You'd grab a little book, maybe a cookie, and just chat for a bit. 😁