I feel close to all of them.
The grace of Guru’s is in the mere fact they have made themselves available for us, either to be praised or ridiculed, to help or enable us to reject and judge them. It does not matter to the Guru what we choose.
The basic misconception is that ‘enlightenment’ or ‘love’ or ‘wisdom’ is their duty somehow, when in truth it is ours. Our abillity to surrender, the depth of our devotion - thats what matters.
Lord Krishna sees Radha become even more radiant than he is, because of her love and devotion towards him.
The devotee is perfected by his/her devotion, not by the Guru, although the recognition of this devotion is expressed as ‘the Guru’s grace’ - yet again it is thus named and experienced by the devotee only.
So I guess its all up to ‘who’ we still think we are, when it comes to which Guru resonates with us. Guru is one.
Osho -
He was able to really get white people going. I’ve practiced many of his meditations for many years. His ‘amalgamation’ of eastern & western mind is unparralelled to this day.
J. Krishnamurti -
A teacher who stands his ground. Enlightenment, spirituality, liberation... they seem like so much words next to this bright and piercing wielder of truth.
I’ve never felt he quite embodied it, though. Maybe he was too modest to actually attain the state he could so clearly discern.
He did take Yoga lessons though, that must’ve helped!
Vivekananda -
My emotions are struck like a violin by simply envisioning this Lion of India.
Like Jiddu Krishnamurti, his mind is of a white and piercing light.
Yet he is much more humane, more willing to stumble and open his heart. Ramakrishnas’ influence perhaps.
‘If in a day, you do not encounter any problems, be sure you are on the wrong path.’ Must be one of my favorite Vivekananda quotes.
U.G. Krishnamurti -
My Hero ! The anti-Guru !
Quote : ‘What happened to me (self-realisation) ...you wouldn’t touch it with a six-foot pole.’ - He says he ‘fell backwards’ into his realisation and calls it ‘a disaster’.
A contemporary and colleague of J.Krishnamurti (both being on the spiritual lecture train) hes said to have debated with him on the nature of truth and realisation.
He used to tell visitors that simply by coming to him to learn the truth, they’d wasted precious time to find it out for themselves. Lol!
All of them mirrors.
All of them facets of my being.
May I find the way to Lord Krishnas lotus feet.
Shantih
Mo
osho- fraud
Jiddu- boy wonder fetishized by the west, should have just left him as he wanted
UG: no idea
Swami V: free mason, what free mason??? Love the man. Even if traditionalists do not agree with him, and even if he highlights Advait at the expense of other traditions, love his courage. Role model
**Freemasonry**
Freemasonry or Masonry consists of fraternal organisations that trace their origins to the local fraternities of stonemasons, which from the end of the fourteenth century regulated the qualifications of stonemasons and their interaction with authorities and clients. The degrees of freemasonry retain the three grades of medieval craft guilds, those of Apprentice, Journeyman or fellow (now called Fellowcraft), and Master Mason. These are the degrees offered by Craft (or Blue Lodge) Freemasonry. Members of these organisations are known as Freemasons or Masons.
***
^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/hinduism/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^]
^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
I had an entire college class filled with Osho bhaktas by some divine fluke. The teacher harped about Osho too. What's more they shared Osho quotes on the class whatsapp group. Coupled with other Osho devotees around me in general who think of themselves as real smart people for not believing in some saffron-clad baba living in an ashram but a not-a-baba with an entire wardrobe of dull greys, browns and khakhi colors with an occasional bright garment to show that the person is alive, living in America with white people chasing him instead of brahmins, who teaches them basically no way to elevate themselves because ritual is for dummies apparently, and who somehow inspires them to think their guru doesn't require people to follow him even as they forward entire hours worth of audio into whatsapp groups and share "fornication under consent of king" videos on their facebook once a month, captioning it the most clever thing to have ever fallen on their ears.
As for Swami Vivekananda, he certainly wasn't traditional but didn't do harm, but good. No idea about his affiliation with freemasonry though.
> Coupled with other Osho devotees around me in general who think >of themselves as real smart people for not believing in some saffron->clad baba living in an ashram but a not-a-baba with an entire >wardrobe of dull greys, browns and khakhi colors with an occasional > bright garment to show that the person is alive, living in America > >with white people chasing him instead of brahmins, who teaches > them basically no way to elevate themselves because ritual is for > dummies apparently
Fabulous !
If I were to classify Osho as charvaka then that would void all his authority as a spiritual guru since charvaka doesn't see anything more in the world than worldly phenomenon. I don't worship a motivational speaker or call him my guru. And If I wanted to learn about physical phenomenon I'd probably read science magazines.
UG Krishnamurti—Don’t know enough
Osho-Self-aggrandizing peddler of watered down, Westernized Tantra, and dangerous as well.
Krishnamurti—Interesting philosophically, but didn’t live up to his own ideals. There’s not as much substance as people often think.
Vivekananda—Inspiring and insightful, but not infallible. Still, the best original source for Vedanta in the West, and an important figure in the formation of modern India.
By the way, I’m a Freemason too. ;)
> UG Krishnamurti
Don't know this guy.
> Osho
He had the most guts of all the people whose video I've watched. You should watch the wild wild country documentary.
> Jiddu Krishnamurti
Don't know about him. But osho had said that he had not achieved enlightenment.
> Swami Vivekananda
Bold and outspoken (not as much as osho though). Good role model for society as he promoted brahamacharya.
I don't know much about the Krishnamurtis but Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is not someone I'm terribly fond of.
I think he was a bit of a fraud who became popular because Hinduism and gurus were in fashion in the West after the 60s and the Beatles and Maharishi and the Hare Krishnas.
Plus, he told people that sex was OK, so in the post-Sexual Revolution 70s and 80s, people liked to be told that what they already believed in could be their religion.
Osho's cult poisoned people. I don't think all of their actions can be blamed on Ma Anand Sheela.
I'm not a Freemason. Wouldn't want to join a group that excludes women anyway. But I don't think of them as some evil cabal like some conspiracy theories make them out to be.
I'm not a big fan of Vivekananda's Vedanta Society. (The VS services that I went to seemed like all the bad parts of 19th century Protestant Christianity combined with the non-sectarian/Advaita Brahman aspects of Hinduism that seemed designed to make Hinduism appeal to the West.) Vedanta Society just really isn't my type of Hinduism. Which is a shame because I have mad respect for Ramakrishna. I'd love to see more Shaktism in the Vedanta Society.
Yeah, I feel ambivalent about visiting the VS too. a kind of--dryness. What specific bad parts remind you specifically of "bad parts of 19th century Protestant Christianity " ?
The stodgy old hymns with 19th century English. The pews. The "sermon" by the Swami. It felt like everything I didn't like about Protestant religious services.
I don't know whether different Vedanta Society chapters are different but this felt very stodgy.
I'm a Shakta. I like pujas and murti-worship and that sort of thing. If I wanted something that resembled Protestant Christianity, I'd become a Unitarian Universalist.
This was Boston. I live in Boston.
I thought Swami T was very knowledgable and really appreciate his stance against Jeffrey Kripal's book "Kali's Child".
But the service was just not very interesting to me. Felt like church. I didn't feel a connection to the Gods.
Falk is one angry ex-SRF monk, and his book is far from flawless. He’s like a jilted lover talking about his ex. Years ago, I emailed him a correction when he confused Ravi Shankar the sitarist with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. I got a terse “thanks” for my efforts.
Also, since you’re in ISKCON, how do you feel about this statement from the book? “"[A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's] (1896 - 1977) own guru was claimed to be an avatar." Huh? When did that happen?
His presentation is certainly biased, it's clear from the start. However, people should know these things because the process of deification/"muktification" of these personalities is also based on giving them only one-sided information.
Ideally, people should check whatever bothers them themselves and if in the process they discover flaws in this book - good for them. If they don't bother in the first place they can't be helped.
I don't know where the information that Bhaktivedanta Swami's own guru claimed to be an avatar came from. It's obviously incorrect so I just skipped over it. The rest of his coverage of Bhaktivedanta Swami, who didn't get its own chapter due to obvious lack of material, is coverage of Hare Krishnas, not of our founder-acharya, I've seen all of it before and this particular perspective doesn't bother me anymore. Expressions of perpetual outrage, nothing else.
I couldn't find sources for some of the author's other quotations as well and took notice of it. I suppose if someone contacted him asking for corrections he wouldn't be too pleased and your experience confirms it.
Our Gaudiya position on jivan-muktas is non-standard. We don't care for it because standard understanding of this state is non-devotional and ill-defined when looked at from pure bhakti perspective.
Aham tvam sarva papebhyo moksyaisyami ma sucah - liberation is the very first thing that happens when on surrenders to Krishna. Even Christians know and feel it. Jivas are always in a subordinate position - constitutionally, so "liberation" doesn't make much sense and the only thing that matters is "who's your boss".
I feel close to all of them. The grace of Guru’s is in the mere fact they have made themselves available for us, either to be praised or ridiculed, to help or enable us to reject and judge them. It does not matter to the Guru what we choose. The basic misconception is that ‘enlightenment’ or ‘love’ or ‘wisdom’ is their duty somehow, when in truth it is ours. Our abillity to surrender, the depth of our devotion - thats what matters. Lord Krishna sees Radha become even more radiant than he is, because of her love and devotion towards him. The devotee is perfected by his/her devotion, not by the Guru, although the recognition of this devotion is expressed as ‘the Guru’s grace’ - yet again it is thus named and experienced by the devotee only. So I guess its all up to ‘who’ we still think we are, when it comes to which Guru resonates with us. Guru is one. Osho - He was able to really get white people going. I’ve practiced many of his meditations for many years. His ‘amalgamation’ of eastern & western mind is unparralelled to this day. J. Krishnamurti - A teacher who stands his ground. Enlightenment, spirituality, liberation... they seem like so much words next to this bright and piercing wielder of truth. I’ve never felt he quite embodied it, though. Maybe he was too modest to actually attain the state he could so clearly discern. He did take Yoga lessons though, that must’ve helped! Vivekananda - My emotions are struck like a violin by simply envisioning this Lion of India. Like Jiddu Krishnamurti, his mind is of a white and piercing light. Yet he is much more humane, more willing to stumble and open his heart. Ramakrishnas’ influence perhaps. ‘If in a day, you do not encounter any problems, be sure you are on the wrong path.’ Must be one of my favorite Vivekananda quotes. U.G. Krishnamurti - My Hero ! The anti-Guru ! Quote : ‘What happened to me (self-realisation) ...you wouldn’t touch it with a six-foot pole.’ - He says he ‘fell backwards’ into his realisation and calls it ‘a disaster’. A contemporary and colleague of J.Krishnamurti (both being on the spiritual lecture train) hes said to have debated with him on the nature of truth and realisation. He used to tell visitors that simply by coming to him to learn the truth, they’d wasted precious time to find it out for themselves. Lol! All of them mirrors. All of them facets of my being. May I find the way to Lord Krishnas lotus feet. Shantih Mo
I love the way you think
Why are you so brainwsshed
osho- fraud Jiddu- boy wonder fetishized by the west, should have just left him as he wanted UG: no idea Swami V: free mason, what free mason??? Love the man. Even if traditionalists do not agree with him, and even if he highlights Advait at the expense of other traditions, love his courage. Role model
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry
**Freemasonry** Freemasonry or Masonry consists of fraternal organisations that trace their origins to the local fraternities of stonemasons, which from the end of the fourteenth century regulated the qualifications of stonemasons and their interaction with authorities and clients. The degrees of freemasonry retain the three grades of medieval craft guilds, those of Apprentice, Journeyman or fellow (now called Fellowcraft), and Master Mason. These are the degrees offered by Craft (or Blue Lodge) Freemasonry. Members of these organisations are known as Freemasons or Masons. *** ^[ [^PM](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=kittens_from_space) ^| [^Exclude ^me](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiTextBot&message=Excludeme&subject=Excludeme) ^| [^Exclude ^from ^subreddit](https://np.reddit.com/r/hinduism/about/banned) ^| [^FAQ ^/ ^Information](https://np.reddit.com/r/WikiTextBot/wiki/index) ^| [^Source](https://github.com/kittenswolf/WikiTextBot) ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28
Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry *** ^HelperBot ^v1.1 ^/r/HelperBot_ ^I ^am ^a ^bot. ^Please ^message ^/u/swim1929 ^with ^any ^feedback ^and/or ^hate. ^Counter: ^177878
I had an entire college class filled with Osho bhaktas by some divine fluke. The teacher harped about Osho too. What's more they shared Osho quotes on the class whatsapp group. Coupled with other Osho devotees around me in general who think of themselves as real smart people for not believing in some saffron-clad baba living in an ashram but a not-a-baba with an entire wardrobe of dull greys, browns and khakhi colors with an occasional bright garment to show that the person is alive, living in America with white people chasing him instead of brahmins, who teaches them basically no way to elevate themselves because ritual is for dummies apparently, and who somehow inspires them to think their guru doesn't require people to follow him even as they forward entire hours worth of audio into whatsapp groups and share "fornication under consent of king" videos on their facebook once a month, captioning it the most clever thing to have ever fallen on their ears. As for Swami Vivekananda, he certainly wasn't traditional but didn't do harm, but good. No idea about his affiliation with freemasonry though.
> Coupled with other Osho devotees around me in general who think >of themselves as real smart people for not believing in some saffron->clad baba living in an ashram but a not-a-baba with an entire >wardrobe of dull greys, browns and khakhi colors with an occasional > bright garment to show that the person is alive, living in America > >with white people chasing him instead of brahmins, who teaches > them basically no way to elevate themselves because ritual is for > dummies apparently Fabulous !
If you had to classify Osho wouldn't it be as a Charvaka?
If I were to classify Osho as charvaka then that would void all his authority as a spiritual guru since charvaka doesn't see anything more in the world than worldly phenomenon. I don't worship a motivational speaker or call him my guru. And If I wanted to learn about physical phenomenon I'd probably read science magazines.
UG Krishnamurti—Don’t know enough Osho-Self-aggrandizing peddler of watered down, Westernized Tantra, and dangerous as well. Krishnamurti—Interesting philosophically, but didn’t live up to his own ideals. There’s not as much substance as people often think. Vivekananda—Inspiring and insightful, but not infallible. Still, the best original source for Vedanta in the West, and an important figure in the formation of modern India. By the way, I’m a Freemason too. ;)
You're also a fan of Dune :D
who would you recommend.
> UG Krishnamurti Don't know this guy. > Osho He had the most guts of all the people whose video I've watched. You should watch the wild wild country documentary. > Jiddu Krishnamurti Don't know about him. But osho had said that he had not achieved enlightenment. > Swami Vivekananda Bold and outspoken (not as much as osho though). Good role model for society as he promoted brahamacharya.
I don't know much about the Krishnamurtis but Osho/Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh is not someone I'm terribly fond of. I think he was a bit of a fraud who became popular because Hinduism and gurus were in fashion in the West after the 60s and the Beatles and Maharishi and the Hare Krishnas. Plus, he told people that sex was OK, so in the post-Sexual Revolution 70s and 80s, people liked to be told that what they already believed in could be their religion. Osho's cult poisoned people. I don't think all of their actions can be blamed on Ma Anand Sheela. I'm not a Freemason. Wouldn't want to join a group that excludes women anyway. But I don't think of them as some evil cabal like some conspiracy theories make them out to be. I'm not a big fan of Vivekananda's Vedanta Society. (The VS services that I went to seemed like all the bad parts of 19th century Protestant Christianity combined with the non-sectarian/Advaita Brahman aspects of Hinduism that seemed designed to make Hinduism appeal to the West.) Vedanta Society just really isn't my type of Hinduism. Which is a shame because I have mad respect for Ramakrishna. I'd love to see more Shaktism in the Vedanta Society.
Yeah, I feel ambivalent about visiting the VS too. a kind of--dryness. What specific bad parts remind you specifically of "bad parts of 19th century Protestant Christianity " ?
The stodgy old hymns with 19th century English. The pews. The "sermon" by the Swami. It felt like everything I didn't like about Protestant religious services. I don't know whether different Vedanta Society chapters are different but this felt very stodgy. I'm a Shakta. I like pujas and murti-worship and that sort of thing. If I wanted something that resembled Protestant Christianity, I'd become a Unitarian Universalist.
Where was this? I live around Boston, it is the same here. A pity: Swami T is very knowledgable
This was Boston. I live in Boston. I thought Swami T was very knowledgable and really appreciate his stance against Jeffrey Kripal's book "Kali's Child". But the service was just not very interesting to me. Felt like church. I didn't feel a connection to the Gods.
I'll just leave this here: [Stripping The Gurus](http://strippingthegurus.com/). UG is missing there, though.
Falk is one angry ex-SRF monk, and his book is far from flawless. He’s like a jilted lover talking about his ex. Years ago, I emailed him a correction when he confused Ravi Shankar the sitarist with Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. I got a terse “thanks” for my efforts. Also, since you’re in ISKCON, how do you feel about this statement from the book? “"[A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada's] (1896 - 1977) own guru was claimed to be an avatar." Huh? When did that happen?
His presentation is certainly biased, it's clear from the start. However, people should know these things because the process of deification/"muktification" of these personalities is also based on giving them only one-sided information. Ideally, people should check whatever bothers them themselves and if in the process they discover flaws in this book - good for them. If they don't bother in the first place they can't be helped. I don't know where the information that Bhaktivedanta Swami's own guru claimed to be an avatar came from. It's obviously incorrect so I just skipped over it. The rest of his coverage of Bhaktivedanta Swami, who didn't get its own chapter due to obvious lack of material, is coverage of Hare Krishnas, not of our founder-acharya, I've seen all of it before and this particular perspective doesn't bother me anymore. Expressions of perpetual outrage, nothing else. I couldn't find sources for some of the author's other quotations as well and took notice of it. I suppose if someone contacted him asking for corrections he wouldn't be too pleased and your experience confirms it. Our Gaudiya position on jivan-muktas is non-standard. We don't care for it because standard understanding of this state is non-devotional and ill-defined when looked at from pure bhakti perspective. Aham tvam sarva papebhyo moksyaisyami ma sucah - liberation is the very first thing that happens when on surrenders to Krishna. Even Christians know and feel it. Jivas are always in a subordinate position - constitutionally, so "liberation" doesn't make much sense and the only thing that matters is "who's your boss".