by Ma Muktananda | Jan 27, 2025 | Articles
By Swami Durgananda
It is essential to emphasize that Prabhuji’s intention has never been to represent, associate, or identify with Christianity or related New Age movements. As a minister and clerical representative, he has been formally ordained within the framework of the religious tradition known as Sanātana-dharma, also referred to as orthodox Hinduism. Within this context, Prabhuji has received traditional ordinations as a brāhmaṇa (1991), sannyāsī (1993), and finally, avadhūta (2011), adhering strictly to the principles and precepts established by this tradition.
The fact that his Iṣṭa-devatās are Śrī Śrī Bhagavān Yeshua Mahāprabhu and Jagat Jananī Miriam Ha Kdosha should not, under any circumstances, be interpreted as a doctrinal affiliation with Christianity or the New Age. This principle finds parallels in recognized orthodox institutions of the Hindu religion, such as the Rāmakṛṣṇa Mission, where Jesus Christ is revered as a divine incarnation, and in the teachings of Paramahaṁsa Yogananda, who emphasized respect and devotion toward Jesus.
Consequently, Prabhuji’s devotion to figures such as Bhagavān Yeshua and Miriam should be understood as part of an inclusive religious worldview inherent to the religion he practices (Sanātana-dharma).
by Ma Muktananda | Jan 27, 2025 | Articles
By Kalimaji
As we all know, our master Prabhuji, although a hermit since 2011, has received, throughout his life the orders of brāhmaṇa, sannyāsī, guru, and avadhūta within the framework of the Sanātana Dharma tradition (Hinduism).
Across the world’s religious traditions, hierarchical structures can be identified that assign specific roles to those devoted to religious life. These hierarchies function as mediators between the human and the divine, ensuring the continuity of sacred practices, the preservation of teachings, and the spiritual guidance of communities. While doctrines and cultural contexts vary significantly among religions, parallels can be drawn between the orders of brāhmaṇa, sannyāsī, and avadhūta in Hinduism; the priestly and monastic orders in Christianity; the rabbinate in Judaism; the religious hierarchies of Islam; and the monastic communities of Buddhism. These religious figures share the responsibility of guiding believers in their pursuit of transcendence and the ultimate meaning of existence.
In Hinduism, also known as Sanātana Dharma, the brāhmaṇa occupies a central role as a member of the priestly caste, responsible for Vedic rituals and the preservation of scriptures. This role is comparable to that of the Christian priest, particularly in their sacramental function as a mediator between the human and the divine. Both the brāhmaṇa and the Christian priest play an essential role in the rites that structure communities’ relationship with the sacred. Similarly, the rabbi in Judaism assumes a position of spiritual leadership and authority in the interpretation of scriptures, such as the Torah and the Talmud. Although the rabbi does not act as a sacramental mediator, like the brāhmaṇa or the Christian priest, their role in guiding adherence to divine law and ethical living establishes a clear parallel in terms of spiritual responsibility.
The sannyāsī in Hinduism represents the ideal of complete renunciation of material attachments and exclusive dedication to the pursuit of the Absolute. This figure has a functional equivalent in the Christian monk, who, through vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, consecrates their life to God and renounces the material world. Similarly, in Buddhism, monks and nuns who are part of the saṅgha adopt a life of detachment dedicated to meditation, the study of the Dharma, and ethical discipline, with the goal of attaining nirvāṇa. In all these traditions, renunciation is seen as a path to liberation and a means of approaching ultimate reality, uniting these figures in their shared purpose of transcending the distractions of worldly life.
The avadhūta, in contrast, embodies the most radical renunciation within Hinduism. This order is distinguished by its emphasis on the direct experience of unity with the divine, leading to complete independence from conventional social and religious norms. Although there is no exact equivalent in other religions, the avadhūta can be compared to Christian or Islamic mystics. In Sufism, for example, the walī, or “friends of God,” are venerated for their closeness to the divine and their transcendence of worldly concerns. Similarly, certain Christian saints, such as the stylites or hermits, display a detachment akin to that of the avadhūta, living in austerity and dedicating themselves exclusively to contemplation and union with God.
In Islam, religious hierarchies, though less centralized than in other traditions, include figures such as the ʿulamāʾ, imāms, and shaykhs. The ʿulamāʾ, as interpreters of Islamic law (sharīʿa), and imāms, as leaders of prayer, fulfill functions comparable to those of the brāhmaṇa and the rabbi, guiding the community in observing religious principles. Sufi shaykhs, masters in the mystical path of Islam, resemble Hindu gurus or Buddhist spiritual masters in guiding their disciples on a path of self-knowledge and transcendental realization.
Buddhism organizes its religious life around the saṅgha, the monastic community that strictly adheres to the rules established by the Buddha. Buddhist monks and nuns dedicate their lives to meditation, teaching the Dharma, and serving the community, performing a role similar to that of the Hindu sannyāsī or the Christian monastic. Furthermore, in Tibetan Buddhism, the figure of the lama introduces an additional hierarchical element, akin to that of Christian bishops or rabbis of greater authority in Judaism, as they act as spiritual guides and leaders in scriptural interpretation.
In all these religious traditions, initiation and ordination processes play a central function, conferring legitimacy and authority on those who assume religious roles. Hindu dīkṣā, Christian ordination, rabbinic investiture, formal entry into the Buddhist saṅgha, or the recognition of a Sufi shaykh are ceremonies that mark individuals’ commitment to their sacred function and their integration into the hierarchical structure of their respective traditions. Despite cultural and theological differences, the purpose of these ceremonies is universal: to prepare religious leaders to preserve sacred teachings, guide communities, and serve as models of virtue and devotion.
These similarities among various traditions highlight how the world’s religions, despite their differences, share a common need to structure spiritual leadership and ensure the continuity of their fundamental principles. Through religious figures and their hierarchies, communities find direction, stability, order, and a direct connection to the transcendent, reaffirming the universality of humanity’s search for the sacred and the ultimate meaning of existence.
by Ma Muktananda | Sep 3, 2024 | FAQ
Prabhuji’s work with each of his disciples is characterized by a deeply individualized relationship, requiring from him a significant commitment of time, energy, and dedication. In 2011, after receiving the blessings of his Gurudeva, Prabhuji chose to follow the path of the reclusive bhajanānandī, retreating into a life of contemplation and reflection. This decision allows him to focus on quality guidance, directing his attention exclusively to a small group of disciples with whom he has maintained a close and continuous relationship for approximately thirty years.
Prabhuji’s decision in 2011 to no longer accept new lifelong monastic disciples stems from his desire to preserve the integrity and authenticity of his guidance. His approach emphasizes the importance of providing attentive and effective guidance, avoiding any compromise to the depth and seriousness of the process. Prabhuji values direct and meaningful interaction with each disciple, seeking to cultivate a relationship of mutual respect and genuine spiritual growth.
Gurudevi.
H.D.G. Avadhutika Bhaktivedanta Yogacharya Srimati Ananda Mataji Maharani.
by Ma Muktananda | Jun 22, 2024 | Freedom
From the book: “Experimenting with the Truth” by Prabhuji
Chapter: When talking about freedom, you mention responsibility. Isn’t responsibility an obstacle to freedom?
To answer your question, we need to understand four factors: freedom, responsibility, control, and discipline.
Generally, people think that freedom is the ability to do whatever they want without any limitations. They believe that freedom means choosing and deciding without restrictions. This notion, however, does not recognize the responsibility that freedom entails. As the Argentinian writer Jorge Bucay said, “The true seeker grows and learns and discovers that he or she is always primarily responsible for whatever happens.” Bucay is right: the freedom to make conscious decisions always comes with responsibility. Freedom is responsibility, and vice versa. George Bernard Shaw said, “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” Responsibility means consciously accepting the consequences of our choices.
We must understand that a conditioned mind lacks freedom. Such a mind may dream of being free, but it only responds according to its conditioning. Freedom, however, is not about responding indiscriminately to all of our mental and emotional demands. Jean-Jacques Rousseau said: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” As long as our yearning for liberation is born from oppression, we will seek to escape its bonds rather than free ourselves. We often think that if the oppressing element vanishes, we will be free. Hence our attention is focused on the chains, on what we desire to be liberated from, rather than on freedom itself.
Now we should understand what responsibility is. Many people link it to duty: we think that being responsible means fulfilling our obligations diligently. Furthermore, we hold ourselves accountable if we fail to meet them. This idea is both incomplete and superficial. The deeper meaning of the term responsibility, which comes from the Latin responsum, is the ability to respond. If we live like sleepwalkers, we cannot respond properly.
Responsibility means responding appropriately to life’s events with all our capacity. If we were all responsible, we would not need laws, judges, or policemen. But since society is made up of immature people, governments resort to control to maintain order. A higher state of consciousness would allow us to adequately respond to life and to make this world a paradise.
Every moment and situation is a call and requires a response that satisfies the demands of life. Unfortunately, many such invitations remain unanswered because we are not present. Due to our conditioning, we are stuck in memories of the past or hopes for the future. We are absent from the present and from reality. We suffer because we cannot adequately respond to life’s invitations. There is no one in the universe who can respond as we would. But in order to respond in our own style, we have to transcend conditioning and regain the ability to listen.
The Sanskrit term śravaṇa means “to listen.” Listening with precision requires silence, as it is impossible to talk and simultaneously perceive what someone is saying. As silence intensifies, attention sharpens. The inner stillness that the śravaṇa requires is not absence of noise but of preconceived ideas, concepts, conclusions, and mental fluctuations. Surely, the first step on the retroprogressive path is cultivating receptivity. Cultivate listening: when you have a doubt related to your health, listen to your body. When you are not sure what direction you should take in life, listen carefully to existence deep within your heart. Those who cultivate the art of receptive and alert listening find silence and peace. Only if we are consciously present in the now will the ability to respond flourish in us. Inner responsibility is born when we are attuned to the present. Responding appropriately requires being in tune with the now.
Responsibility is discipline. By learning something we respond, and by responding we learn. To be able to ride a bicycle, for example, we need to learn how to respond. If the bicycle tilts to the left, we lean to the right, and vice versa. With a lot of attention, observation, and presence, we respond to the various situations that the learning process requires. It is impossible to separate responsibility from learning. Responsibility is discipline; responding is learning.
When we notice our own unacceptable, undesirable, or indecent inclinations, we often try to repress them by exerting control. Yet, this resistance is still an egotistic assessment for our personal convenience. Even our ambition for freedom falls into the same category. The ego may be controlled, but it will remain an ego nonetheless. This control, or misunderstood discipline, does not help us eliminate our inclinations but only repress them. Repressive control hardens us and creates a conflict between “what I am” and “what I should be”, between “what I see” and “what I should be seeing.” Hiding our internal conflict, we become atrophied and lose agility. Although repressed and restricted, these undesirable inclinations continue to live and move within us.
You are still not free, you seek freedom. Your seeking made you sleep-deprived and over-awake.
You aspire to the free heights, your soul thirsts for the stars. But your wicked instincts also thirst for freedom.
Your wild dogs want to get free; they bark with joy in their cellar when your spirit contrives to liberate all prisons.
To me you are still a prisoner who plots his freedom. Alas, the soul of such prisoners grows clever, but also deceptive and rotten.
The one who is free of spirit must still purify himself. Much prison and mold is left in him: his eyes must still become pure.
(Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Friedrich Nietzsche)
Control paralyzes certain inclinations and creates habits. It turns living beings into robots and destroys intelligence and creativity. Control shrinks us; it impels us to perform specific actions and aggravates our conditioning. Clearly, freedom is not acquired through control, because we cannot be free within our conditioning, whether positive or negative. To reach freedom and responsibility, sensitivity is required. Sensitivity is not cultivated by control but with discipline. Therefore, it is necessary to separate the terms discipline and control because, although they sound similar, they are completely different.
The word discipline comes from the Latin term discipulus, which, in turn, is derived from discere or disco, i.e., “one who learns” or “one who has an aptitude for learning.” People relate discipline to control, but these two are totally different. Control is a series of laws, rules, and regulations, while discipline is born of understanding and awareness. Many think that it is necessary to dominate animal nature; yet, control is also part of the egoic phenomenon. Control assaults our nature, whereas discipline is spontaneous and blossoms out of consciousness.
Free beings, and therefore responsible beings, require no control, for they are aware of their own needs and those of others. Those who are unconscious and irresponsible have to be controlled because they lack the sensitivity to respond to existence. Conscious beings are disciplined but free of control. They live awake like seagulls flying high, in total freedom, without laws or rules.
Now we shall examine how freedom, discipline, and responsibility are related. Discipline, in its true meaning, is learning, not in the sense of accumulating knowledge or information, but in the sense of perceiving and observing what is, as it is. In order to learn, it is necessary to completely free ourselves from all accumulated information. Otherwise, instead of observing what is, we will project what we know on what we are learning. We will not observe reality, but only what we grasp according to our conditioning. The freedom to perceive and to observe is essential for learning. If we wish to study ourselves, we must get rid of all beliefs, concepts, and conclusions about what we are. This kind of learning is responsibility, because it is a response to existence.
Society confuses control with discipline, because it maintains a semblance of order by controlling unconscious people. Unlike imposed order, discipline reveals the harmony of life. Trying to control our thoughts will not help us create inner order. Inner harmony can be discovered only by observing our mental activity.
From within the known, our reaction will always be mechanical. Only when we become free from all conditioning and respond to the call of existence will we act responsibly. Once we transcend memory, we will respond consciously. To be responsible is to be disciplined. An irresponsible being has to be motivated or impelled through control; only those who are responsible can learn.
No, dear friend, responsibility is not an obstacle to your freedom. Responsibility and discipline are implicit in freedom.
Recent Comments