Babaji

[Prashanth]

who here like myself believes in the existence of Babaji? i believe since he's been around for a long time in this life on Earth his consciousness is one of the highest if not the highest of all human's on Earth presently. this happens since when our conscienceness grows his does as well, like all hierarchial systems. there is always a higher and a lower. i know he exists. waht do you guys feel?

[kcp1982]

Hare krishna.

 

Who is he?

 

Please provide details.

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna and dandavats

 

I guess you are talking about the Babaji mentioned by yogananda and his followers. But how do you come to the conclusion:

 

i believe since he's been around for a long time in this life on Earth his consciousness is one of the highest if not the highest of all human's on Earth presently.

 

 

 

No living entity ever dies for it was never born. Those who choose so from the human platform are on the way to "higher consciousness" whether on the earthly platform or in other lokas, wherever they live. Then what can it prove. All the pure devotees have the "same level of consciousness" if one wants to compare that way. You seem to imply that no human on the earth is a God realized soul, but that is not true. For me it suffices that their philosophy is not in line with any of the four vaishnava sampradayas or Chaitanya Mahaprabhu etc.

[Guest guest]

 

You guys are obsessed with the sampradaya ghost!

You have been brainwashed with this sampradayikta!

You can't think any other way.

The consciousness of Sri Babaji is beyond the understanding of your sampradayik nonesense! You can't know God as he does.

Your knowledge is limited to reading of books.

No matter how much you quote Bhagwatam of Geeta, it is all bookish

knwledge. It is not experienced! God is experience. Not just words!

[Guest guest]

By not experienced bookish knowledge, I mean something that you have never experienced! It was experienced by Arjuna or others at that time but not you. Your level is reading and believing, which is way down than experiencing and knowing!

 

[Guest guest]

Babji is supposed to be the 'Kalpa avatar' of Lord Krishna who is consequently also supposed to be Govindapada, the guru of Shankara. Sometimes Yogananda refers to him as "Babaji Krishna" He works in the background serves the purpose of educating the and purifying the monks at the highest level. It was he that told Lahiri Mahasaya to send Yogananda to the west to unite hinduism and christianity. It is said that he is at least 2500 years old and that he made a promise to his sister Mataji that he would never cast off his body.

 

"The northern Himalayan crags near Badrinarayan are still blessed by the living presence of Babaji, guru of Lahiri Mahasaya. The secluded master has retained his physical form for centuries, perhaps for millenniums. The deathless Babaji is an avatara."

 

"Babaji's spiritual state is beyond human comprehension," Sri Yukteswar explained to me. "The dwarfed vision of men cannot pierce to his transcendental star. One attempts in vain even to picture the avatar's attainment. It is inconceivable."

 

 

"'Blessed sister,' Babaji said, 'I am intending to shed my form and plunge into the Infinite Current.'

 

"'I have already glimpsed your plan, beloved master. I wanted to discuss it with you tonight. Why should you leave your body?' The glorious woman looked at him beseechingly.

 

"'What is the difference if I wear a visible or invisible wave on the ocean of my Spirit?'

 

"Mataji replied with a quaint flash of wit. 'Deathless guru, if it makes no difference, then please do not ever relinquish your form.'5

 

"'Be it so,' Babaji said solemnly. 'I will never leave my physical body. It will always remain visible to at least a small number of people on this earth. The Lord has spoken His own wish through your lips.'

 

"As I listened in awe to the conversation between these exalted beings, the great guru turned to me with a benign gesture.

 

"'Fear not, Ram Gopal,' he said, 'you are blessed to be a witness at the scene of this immortal promise.'

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"You guys are obsessed with the sampradaya ghost!"

 

such statement is useless... if you are able simply demonstrate that such principle is useless

 

"No matter how much you quote Bhagwatam of Geeta, it is all bookish

knwledge. It is not experienced! God is experience. Not just words! "

 

so you have not "book experience" nor "god experience"... otherwise you were explaining your critics, not simply insuting

[Guest guest]

The above post mentioned Sai Baba in the subject, I hope you don't think that Satya Sai Baba is who is meant by Babaji.

[Guest guest]

First of all I didn't even mention Sai-Baba here. The thread is about the celestial Babaji! The Guru of Sri Lahiri Mahasaya!

 

Secondly Sampraday fanatics -

What I meant is reading books is good of course, but experience is what is realization. Books are not realized knowledge. A lot of people (mostly fanatics) start fighting over their bookish knowledge. On issues they have read and believe. But have you really experienced it? I've seen guys fight over Shiva Dhama or Vishnu dhama. The truth is that neither of us are there or can reach it at oue own will! Why fight over it?? Isn't it illogical. YOu can believe what you want. God has given us free will. I wrote the message about sampradaya fanatics because many times they come attacking other peopel and force their sampradayas line of thought stressing that it is one and the only way to think!!! Condemning alll others and desperately trying to prove it to be wrong!! This is what we should not accept. Of course the Krishna Consciouseness is a bona-fide movement and philosophy!

Over enthusiastic 'devotees' forcing and attacking others become pathetic!

 

"so you have book experience nor God experience - you said it with such sonfirmity that you know me for my past three births! What a pathetic view!!

Don't be so full of yourself prabhu! We are not fighting here! And I can explain more if you want. Don't take it as an insult! It is what the pulling down others attitude that I talked about. Nobody is perfect! It's a material world!

 

Hari om!

[Guest guest]

I wrote "books is not realized knowledge"

- it may sound a bit confusing the way it is written so I'll clarify my point a bit more!

Of course all the holy scriptures Bhagwatam, Gita upanishads etc are based on divine experience and written down by divine sages. No doubt in their authenticity! They reflect the truth!

But our understanding of them may not be the same. Because we don't have the same level of divine experience!! So we tend to read them as words alone!

And many of us don't even read them - like Srila Prabhupada once remarked "the devotees distribute more than they read my books". So that's what I meant. I have read a lot but is not realized knowledge on my part too! So hope this explains it.

Don't worry I'm not trying to insult anybody. It's just a reflection in the waters of my soul! We believe what we read, but it is important that we don't start attacking others' view with ours! The shastras can be contradicting. The same Vyasa Deva wrote praises to Krsna, Siva and Devi in different Shastras in the same tone. One sampradaya prefers to read one book and the other reads other. Now they meet somewhere and start fighting aggressively saying oh see what is written here and we don't accept the other scripture! That's what we should avoid. Anyway neither has reached his goal yet!!

 

Hari iccha hi kevalam!

[Guest guest]

reading books is good of course, but experience is what is realization

•••of course.. are you saying that hare krsnas or everyone who knows that an authentic guru has to come from an authetic sampradaya are not realizad?

 

 

I wrote the message about sampradaya fanatics because many times they come attacking other peopel and force their sampradayas line of thought stressing that it is one and the only way to think!!!

••that's not the case of true vaishnavas. Simply every master has to be a perfect disciple, and a perfect disciple can accept only a perfect master. So a real master is the last of a dinasty, and such dinasty somewhere, has to have GOD as one of the masters, otherwise it is false..

If your master is in one of those authentic dinasty he's real and your realizations about his value are true and not illusory..

 

 

[Guest guest]

"First of all I didn't even mention Sai-Baba here"

 

Hence the reason I said the ABOVE post meaning the post immediately preceding.

 

Some people are fanatics fighting over bookish knowledge some people are fanatics fighting about people fighting over bookish knowledge some people are fanatics about people fighting about people fighting over bookish knowledge. etc etc etc and so on

[Guest guest]

I was reading your comment on a post.

And felt compelled to reply.

Of course an authentic Guru has to come from an authentic Sampradaya and has to have God at the center, but then there is a difference in what you understand by realization. There is a difference of Hare Krisna's understanding of God realization and a let's say - a Yogi's meaning of realization. In the first case, the so called master may be elevated soul dedicated to service and bhakti but still not fully realized or 'illumined'! We are not talking about reading and believing but seeing and believing! Realization means siddhi! And Siddhi means perfection. The most important principle of a yogi or tantra Guru is that he should have reached his goal or attained self realization, met his beloved (God). Since the path is technically more difficult, the disciple without a siddha Purush as his Guru in the given sadhna cannot acheive the siddhi!

Did the Gurus you are talking about meet Krisna or achieved a level when a bhakta can actually interact with the Lord, or have direct communion with / vision of the Lord God, I won't comment on this!

Many of such Gurus who were supposedly Gurus fell from their position in the past. And all of them were declared bonafide authentic Gurus! So where is the measureing guage here?

 

It is not just a question of devotion and "dinasty"!

As I wrote earlier, Yes, there are Vaishnava Sampradayas whose principle agenda is to bring as many people into its fold as possible and a majority of the practice is based on multi-level organized and private marketing. And arguing on books. And the same sampradayas have good bonafide Gurus too. Of course most other sampradayas also believe in God. But here the agenda is to prove that the way "we" do is the only right way!! So every other way may be good but not really that good as ours!

It is a bit different philosophy.

Regarding bonafied Gurus, you wrote that is not the case with Vaishnavas.

Well I think this is the case on an individual basis! Vaishnavas or Shaivas. Both are mortals with human weaknesses and tendencies. And they can fall. Vaishnavas are not insured from falling or not reaching the epitome of their sadhna! Don't you agree?

I for example is a Shiva bhakta and the Supreme Lord for me is Siva but I gladly come and do service for Iskcon Gurus, at the temple and many of my good friends are Vaishnavas. Would you do the same?? That determines the liberal view in practice. How you reject others and accept them. I have Siva and Krsna at my altar. Would a regular Hare-Krisna keep Lord Siva's as one of the deities in their altar is the question! Don't you market him as a mere Demi-God?

 

So if you write that's not the case with True Vaishnavas, then I say that's not the case with true Shaivas or Shaktaas either! That's not the case with true bhaktas! It's a one sided story told from your angle! Iskcon now owes millions of Dollars to the families of children sexually abused at their so called Gurukulas across the country and other places. How can so many vaishnavas 'fall'? What happened to the four principles? What happened when the great Guru Vishnupad left the organization? I just gave two examples to prove that its not a question of Vaishnavas or non vaishnavas. People make mistakes!

But Great bhaktas have appeared in India at different times. Vaishnavas and Shaivas and Shaktas, dvaits and advaites! Only saying that "only" Vaishnavas are great is not true. Its a way to influence people. Of course the Vaishnava qualities are elevated! And we should practice the Vaishnava culture.

No doubt!

 

Hari om!

 

[Guest guest]

I do not think that you have experienced GOD. I would rather believe in Bhagavad Gita than what some mahananda or yogananda or some anaonymous guy like you says.

 

It is foolish to believe in some babaji and some nonsense, when you have the authorized writings of Veda Vyasa.

 

By the way there is no proof for your foolish claims of some baba being any avatar.

[Guest guest]

"It is foolish to believe in some babaji nonsense"

 

and the evangelical Christian would say:

 

"It is foolish to believe in some Krishna nonense when you have the authorized writings of the bible"

 

and the atheist would say

 

"It is foolish to believe in any religion when you have science"

 

How is your belief better than anyone elses? How are you so sure that all these Krishna things are not just stories? You always have to depend on someone telling you something, thereafter you apply your own logic and accept or reject it as true or false.

[Guest guest]

In the first case, the so called master may be elevated soul dedicated to service and bhakti but still not fully realized or 'illumined'

--you do not know the gaudya vaishnava sampradaya (=hare krishna) very well if you say like this. Read the Bhagavad GIta and you'll understand that a spiritual master has to be "tattva darshinah".. one who sees the absolute truth, Sri Krsna Bhagavan.

If one sees Krsna, any kind of ignorance goes away and there's no question of being partially realized. The true spiritual master is fully realized or he's a fake..

 

Did the Gurus you are talking about meet Krisna

--there's no other kind of guru

 

Many of such Gurus who were supposedly Gurus fell from their position in the past. And all of them were declared bonafide authentic Gurus! So where is the measureing guage here?

--the measurement is our devotion, If we are honestly desiring to reach krsna, krsna will give us honest gurus.

Of course is not a pleasure to remember how many devotees were cheated, but our story demonstrates that the existence of a pure sampradaya is possible, Bhagavad Gita speaks of it, and if we are sincere we can see in the world many gaudya vaishnava authentic gurus who are giving shelter to many devotees

 

the remaining message is to defend yourself from fanaticism and exclusivism.... the fact is that no one has attached you or your sampradaya or cult. Simply It has been said that a guru has to be from a traditional sampradaya starting from GOD. So your "babaji" have these features or, for vedic tradition, he's a cheater..

 

where's the wrong in this statement?

 

if you say to me that my mother is a prostitute, i do not try to legitimate the prostitution, i say to you that my mother is not a prostitute

 

so... if your "babaji" is from a sampradaya tell it to us, instead of trying to delegitimate the sampradaya's principle and gaudya vaisnavas gurus

[Guest guest]

Given that Babaji is said to be Shankaracaraya's guru he would have been taught through the following line

 

Narayana-> Brahma-> Vashishta->Shakti->Parasara->Vyasa->Suka->Gaudapada->Babaji (Govindapada)

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

[Guest guest]

 

How is your belief better than anyone elses? How are you so sure that all these Krishna things are not just stories? You always have to depend on someone telling you something, thereafter you apply your own logic and accept or reject it as true or false.

 

 

There are couple of schools under Vedanata. All of them authorize Gita, confirm Krishna as Bhagavan.

 

Yes christianity is there and aheists reject everything.

 

That does not prove babaji is some avatar. He is still a fantasy created by some mahananda and nothing more.

 

Besides it is not my interest to prove I am right. I know I am right through my experiences and all these babajis are just fakes.

 

The question you should ask yourself is how you know your fake babajis and mahanandas are telling you some truth ?

 

If you found some truth there then practise that properly and stop bothering those who follow Vaishnavas with your trash posts.

[Guest guest]

 

Given that Babaji is said to be Shankaracaraya's guru he would have been taught through the following line

 

Narayana-> Brahma-> Vashishta->Shakti->Parasara->Vyasa->Suka->Gaudapada->Babaji (Govindapada)

 

 

This must be some joke. Tommorow I can come write my own name in that list as well.

 

It is right that Govindapada is the Guru of Shanakaacharya. But who the hell is this babaji. Where is the proof for his lineage ? Is there any text, from say Advaita line, to support this ?

 

I know this mudah janma will write as though "I am waiting to be always told what to believe by someone else" as he did before.

 

I would rather believe what comes through sampradaya, than some anonymous guy like yourself or some mandananda or mahananda.

[Guest guest]

 

...

 

How is your belief better than anyone elses? How are you so sure that all these Krishna things are not just stories? You always have to depend on someone telling you something, thereafter you apply your own logic and accept or reject it as true or false.

 

 

--------------------------

Hmm..

 

So let me ask you

How is your belief in some nameless babaji better than anyone elses?

 

How are you so sure that all these babaji things are not just stories?

 

Did you know the existence of your papaji through mandanada's words or yogananda's words or you just feel(I mean halucinate) his presence?

 

Whi is this Mandananda or Yogananda or whoever you know your papaji's existence ?

 

----------------------------

 

As for Krishna's existence is confirmed through Shakaracharya, Ramanuja, Madhva, and so many stalwarts of Vedanta school.

 

Ofcourse christians and atheists do not believe in this. I do not bother with them and youare not from that community either. So why bother about them. Lets talk about your belief and Vaishnavism.

 

You said "You always have to depend on someone telling you something, thereafter you apply your own logic and accept or reject it as true or false." as though you were some realized soul.

 

All of us depend on someone else or something else, to learn anything from birth. There is nothing wrong in being dependent on reliable sources for knowledge. Shanakaracharya had a Guru, Ramanujacharya had a guru, Madhvacharya had a Guru and so does everybody else. All these great Acharya's were dependent on sampradaya and Scriptures themselves.

 

Your papaji, if he exists, should himself have gone through that process. All these papajis are all humans. If they call themselves as GOD, they are fakes and arrogant fools.

 

So the point is if great Acharya's depended on Vedas and sampradaya, then a arrogant fellow like you also need to learn from other sources like Guru, sampradaya and Scriptures. Do not arrogantly state as though we are fools here to follow this process.

 

Do you think a guy like you who was born yesterday(not lterally), know everything to teach everybody here ? Learn humilty instead of being boastful and arrogant.

 

As for your belief in different papajis and various nanadas, it stands without proof. If they are truly realized, my apologies to them.

[Guest guest]

I never did say that my belief was better than anyone elses. Nor did I say that I actually believed in anyone, or in no-one, where did you extrapolate all these things from? I was merely saying just as you have your beliefs others have theirs it is not for you to belittle anyone, where does krsna ever teach one to do that? He says "TO see me in all beings and shape your conduct toward them accordingly, that is the best method of worship" Please keep that in mind next time you call people mudhas, arrogant or use any other derogatory language.

 

 

[Guest guest]

"You said "You always have to depend on someone telling you something, thereafter you apply your own logic and accept or reject it as true or false." as though you were some realized soul"

 

What does realization have to do with that? That is just common sense.

 

"All of us depend on someone else or something else, to learn anything from birth. There is nothing wrong in being dependent on reliable sources for knowledge. "

 

When did I say that something is wrong or that this is flawed??????? It is just a process that accounts for the difference in views and opinions that arise amongst people.

 

 

"then a arrogant fellow like you also need to learn from other sources like Guru, sampradaya and Scriptures. Do not arrogantly state as though we are fools here to follow this process. "

 

What makes you think I don't have a Guru or don't rely on scriptures??? When did I say that you are fools to follow this process??? I am not the same person talking about the "Sampradaya ghost" in case that is what you are thinking.

 

 

"Do you think a guy like you who was born yesterday(not lterally), know everything to teach everybody here ? Learn humilty instead of being boastful and arrogant.

"

 

Please tell me exactly what is your impression of a "guy like me". What have you based the statement that I am arrogant or WISH to teach everybody anything, please explain exactly what did I boast of.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

"You said "You always have to depend on someone telling you something, thereafter you apply your own logic and accept or reject it as true or false." as though you were some realized soul"

 

What does realization have to do with that? That is just common sense.

 

 

Shows your capacity to understand. Read your statement. Your statement means that "we have to depend on someone else for knowledge" which implies you do not depend on anyone else for knowledge like us, and hence I said

 

"You may be thinking yourself to be a realized soul".

 

I did not say you need realization to make that foolish and meaningless statement of yours.

 

The rest of the reply let it go to that person who put those verses there.

[Guest guest]

 

I never did say that my belief was better than anyone elses. Nor did I say that I actually believed in anyone, or in no-one, where did you extrapolate all these things from? I was merely saying just as you have your beliefs others have theirs it is not for you to belittle anyone, where does krsna ever teach one to do that? He says "TO see me in all beings and shape your conduct toward them accordingly, that is the best method of worship"

 

 

So in short you are here to teach others here. I or we need not believe or respect another person calling himself as GOD, when he is a puny human.

 

Lord Krishna never says that you worship everybody as MYSELF. What HE says is that HE is present everywhere, even in your fake babaji. This does not imply Lord Krishna and papaji are same.

 

There is a verse in Gita that says those who worship Devatas got to devatas, those who worship ancestors go to them etc. .....and those who worship ME come to ME. T

 

 

Please keep that in mind next time you call people mudhas, arrogant or use any other derogatory language.

 

 

If one makes arrogant statements then that is what it is.