Why diksa / Why the emphasis on post-Mahaprabhu time?

[Guest guest]

There is one post of mine I sent in a while ago, but which seems to have gone

largely unaddressed. It contains the gist of what I have to say for now. I will

repeat some passages from it to demonstrate why the main concern in examining

the dynamics of the the disciplic lines is on the post-Mahaprabhu period.

 

Aside the points below, I believe all that is to be said from both sides is more

or less said, and if there is nothing to add to the points below, then let us

leave it up to the reader to make up his/her mind.

 

 

= = = = =

 

 

This passage addresses the subject matter of eternity of the diksa-lineage into

which one is initiated.

 

Everywhere in the Gaudiya tradition outside the Gaudiya Matha, the initiate is

offered a certain guru-pranali of diksa-gurus, and when time is mature, he is

informed of the siddha-counterpart of this pranali, the siddha-identities of

the gurus in his succession. This is sometimes called siddha-pranali, and it is

the succession of the initiate's eternal allegiance of servitude to Sri Sri

Radha and Krishna. The tradition has been ongoing since the days the prominent

associates of Mahaprabhu began their disciplic lineages.

 

The concept is vividly presented by Bhaktivinoda in the siddhi-lalasa of his

Gita Mala, wherein he prays in the inner bhava of Kamala Manjari to his

guru-manjari (Vilasa Manjari -- Vipina Vihari Gosvami), the head of their

pranali (Ananga Manjari -- Jahnava Thakurani) and to Sri Rupa Manjari, the

chief among all maidservants.

 

vilAsa maJjarI anaGga maJjarIzrI rUpa maJjarI Ara |AmAke tuliyA loho nija

padedeho more siddhi sAra || 4 ||

"Vilasa Manjari, Ananga Manjari and Sri Rupa Manjari, please uplift me and give

me the shelter of your lotus feet, for by your mercy I shall be awarded the

essence of all spiritual perfection."

 

For those of you not acquainted with this work, siddhi-lalasa is the final

chapter of Bhaktivinoda's Gita Mala, a series of nine songs in which

Bhaktivinoda reveals his innermost aspirations. This is the famous section in

which he also describes his siddha-svarupa. Is it reasonable to propose that

since then, Bhaktivinoda rejected his own siddha-svarupa and the siddha-pranali

in which he served the Divine Couple? He also initiated all of his diksita

disciples into the same pranali.

 

If you wish to review the entire siddhi-lalasa, I rendered it into English in

memoriam of Bhaktivinoda's appearance day this year. You can read it at

http://www.raganuga.com/d/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=376 . The verse quoted above

is the final prayer of the ninth song, the concluding verse of the book.

 

Aside Bhaktivinoda, the theory is presented for example in the writings of

Dhyanacandra Gosvami and Gopal Guru Gosvami. Visvanatha Cakravarti presents his

siddha-pranali in his Sankalpa Kalpadruma, narrating his own eight-fold daily

services he renders with his guru-manjari, in the end of the work listing the

siddha-counterpart of his diksa-guru-pranali.

 

Thus guru-pranali is traced back to the eternal associates of Sri Caitanya

Mahaprabhu, and the corresponding siddha-pranali is traced to a prominent

associate of Radha and Krishna. This is the eternal allegiance of service of

the initiate.

 

 

= = = = =

 

This passage reflects on the definition of diksa and the formal connection with

the Madhva-tradition.

 

 

>>> How do you define diiksha, if what transpired between Vyaasa and Madhva was

diiksha? If, as your colleague Jan says, there must be the ritual ceremony with

the lighting of the sacred fire, etc, then I can honestly say that it did not

happen. There is no mention of such a thing in Madhva's biography, not even

mention of a mantra initiation. <<<

 

Diksa is understood as follows (quoting from Bhakti Sandarbha, Anuccheda 283):

 

divyaM jJAnaM yato dadyAt kuryAt pApasya saGkSayam |tasmAd dIkSeti sA proktA

dezikais tattva kovidaiH ||ato guruM praNamyaivaM sarvasvaM vinivedya ca

|gRhNIyAd vaiSNavaM mantraM dIkSA pUrvaM vidhAnataH ||

 

"The teachers who are knowers of the truth say that since it gives (da) divine

knowledge and destroys (ksi) sin it is called diksa. Therefore, paying

obeisance to the guru and offering him one's all, one should receive a Vaisnava

mantra diksa preceded with proper procedures."

 

divyaM jJAnaM hy atra zrImati mantre bhagavat-svarUpa-jJAnaM, tena bhagavatA

sambandha-vizeSa-jJAnaM ca |

 

"Divine knowledge means here knowledge of the true nature of the Lord in the

mantra and, by that, knowledge of one's own special relationship with Him."

 

The same is reiterated in the Hari Bhakti Vilasa. There is no other definition

known in the Gaudiya tradition.

 

Given the numerous disagreements between the Madhvite tradition and the Gaudiya

tradition surrounding the concept of parampara, many argue that a connection

with the Madhva-parampara was presented merely for decorum's sake, whereas in

truth there was no need to trace the parampara anywhere beyond Caitanya,

Advaita and Nityananda, who were themselves the Lord incarnate in three forms,

who descended to found a new sampradaya.

 

If someone desires to examine the different arguments why the connection with

the Madhvite tradition is sometimes said to be a presentation made for

decorum's sake, you can examine a comprehensive article by Jan Brzezinski at

the following address:

http://www.granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles/showarticle.php?id=13

 

The fact is that, though the acaryas from Laksmipati upwards are mentioned, most

of the Gaudiyas who are supposed to honor them as their worshipable succession

of predecessors hardly know who the respected acaryas are. While the writings

of the Gosvamis and their followers are given paramount importance in the

Gaudiya tradition, practically no emphasis is laid on studying the writings of

even Sri Madhva Acarya, what to speak of the rest in his line up to Laksmipati.

 

Most Gaudiyas are not concerned over the parampara beyond Nityananda, Advaita

and Caitanya, and the theme hardly merits any discussion among them.

 

If we wish to argue that the parampara presented by Baladeva is a

siksa-parampara, we should be able to demonstrate the siksa which has descended

through the parampara. The glaring fact is that many of the conceptions of the

Madhvite tradition are radically different from the Gaudiya theology. This

point has merit for a whole other thead of discussion. If someone wishes to

pursue a discussion on the differences between the theology of the Madhva and

the Gaudiya traditions, please start a new thread of discussion with a

different heading.

 

= = = = =

 

 

Regards,

 

Madhava

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Madhava" <harekrishna@s...> wrote:

>

> There is one post of mine I sent in a while ago, but which seems to

have gone largely unaddressed. It contains the gist of what I have to

say for now. I will repeat some passages from it to demonstrate why

the main concern in examining the dynamics of the the disciplic lines

is on the post-Mahaprabhu period.

>

 

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Below you will find my

comments. I only glanced at this before, but just recently it again

caught my attention.

 

> This passage addresses the subject matter of eternity of the diksa-

lineage into which one is initiated.

>

> Everywhere in the Gaudiya tradition outside the Gaudiya Matha, the

initiate is offered a certain guru-pranali of diksa-gurus, and when

time is mature, he is informed of the siddha-counterpart of this

pranali, the siddha-identities of the gurus in his succession.

>

 

[snip]

 

> The concept is vividly presented by Bhaktivinoda in the siddhi-

lalasa of his Gita Mala, wherein he prays in the inner bhava of

Kamala Manjari to his guru-manjari (Vilasa Manjari -- Vipina Vihari

Gosvami), the head of their pranali (Ananga Manjari -- Jahnava

Thakurani) and to Sri Rupa Manjari, the chief among all maidservants.

>

> vilAsa maJjarI anaGga maJjarI

> zrI rUpa maJjarI Ara |

> AmAke tuliyA loho nija pade

> deho more siddhi sAra || 4 ||

>

> "Vilasa Manjari, Ananga Manjari and Sri Rupa Manjari, please uplift

me and give me the shelter of your lotus feet, for by your mercy I

shall be awarded the essence of all spiritual perfection."

>

 

[snip]

 

As you and I are especially fond of conservative translations, allow

me to point out a few things from the above.

 

Taking the verse as it is translated above, this is a prayer to

Vilasa, Ananga, and Sri Rupa Manjari to give their shelter and mercy.

Of course, I don't claim to be a scholar of Srila Bhaktivinod's

works, but obviously we must see this for what it is before we try to

read something more esoteric into it.

 

One of the underlying assumptions here appears to be that because

Srila Bhaktivinod prays for the shelter of these eternal associates,

that they must therefore be the siddha forms of the gurus in his

paramparaa.

 

Regarding this point, one should admit that there is no explicit

admission here that Srila Bhaktivinod is praying to his guru. Is it

unreasonable to expect that he might pray to eternal associates of

the Lord? Many prayers of this type are frequently repeated in

Gaudiiya Vaishnava circles, such as "shrii-chaitanya-mano-

bhiiShTa.m..." and so on and so forth.

 

Another assumption in your thinking appears to be that Bipin Bihari

Gosvami is Vilasa Manjari. Perhaps I missed where Bhaktivinod Thakur

wrote this, but regardless, I don't see how one can prove that

objectively. People often glorify their gurus like that, but that

does not make it correct. Can anyone here really claim to have read

all of Srila Bhaktivinod's writings, and conclude that he glorified

no other guru besides Bipin Bihari?

 

I also do not agree with the idea that diiksha legitimizes one's

place in a guru-pranali, anymore than I agree with the idea that

diiksha legitimizes one's status as a Brahmin. In India these days,

all one has to have is the proper gotra, nakshatra, and rishi and he

can certainly get the diiksha ceremony performed for him by a "priest-

for-hire," with no question over qualifications on the part of either

the "guru" or the "disciple." Actually, by such a standard, I also

have an eternal connection to Shrii Raamaanuja, since my diiksha was

technically in his sampradaaya.

 

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta must have had some other reason to reject the

idea that Bipin Bihari Gosvami was the actual guru of Srila

Bhaktivinod, despite the formality of diiksha between them. What that

reason is, I do not know for sure. I suspect that it is going to get

down to an issue of Bipin Bihari Gosvami's character - do we really

want to go there? Or should we not just accept Srila

Bhaktisiddaanta's version?

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

At 01:03 AM 1/15/03 +0000, krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote:

>Another assumption in your thinking appears to be that Bipin Bihari

>Gosvami is Vilasa Manjari. Perhaps I missed where Bhaktivinod Thakur

>wrote this, but regardless, I don't see how one can prove that

>objectively.

 

Actually, I believe you'll find this in Bhaktivinoda's diksha-patra. In

that document he lists his guru-parampara and their siddha-dehas going back

to Jahnava Thakurani. It's available in Shukavak's A Hindu Encounter with

Modernity.

 

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

>

> Another assumption in your thinking appears to be that Bipin Bihari

> Gosvami is Vilasa Manjari. Perhaps I missed where Bhaktivinod Thakur

> wrote this, but regardless, I don't see how one can prove that

> objectively. People often glorify their gurus like that, but that

> does not make it correct.

 

Even if his swaroop is mentioned in the diksha patra of Shrila Bhaktivinode

Thakur, who compiled it? If it was Bipin Bihari himself, one may be led to feel

that the claim is somewhat dubious. My understanding,according to Gaur

Ganodesh Deepika, is that Jiva Goswami is Vilasa Manjari.

 

>Can anyone here really claim to have read

> all of Srila Bhaktivinod's writings, and conclude that he glorified

> no other guru besides Bipin Bihari?

 

In Shri Vishnu Priya palli patrika, Shri Thakur Bhaktivinode writes -

 

he jagannath das prabriti adhunatan gouranga priya bhaktagan, apanader

charane amara dandabat patitia hoiya kritanjali puvrvaka prathana koriteche,

apanara shri sanatan goswamir sthalabhisikta hoiya shri shri mayapurer

sthanasamuha nirdesha korun. ekhan apanarai amadiger guru ar kahake

janaibo

 

"O Jaganath Das, as well as all the devotees of Gouranga, we fall and offer

dandavats at your feet and pray to you that you take the mantle of Shri

Sanatan Goswami and reveal the places of Shri mayapur. you are our guru,

who else shall i pray to?"

 

Bhaktivinode could well have offered this pray to Bipin Bihari Goswami but

didn't. The question is, why?

 

Taradevi

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Tara Choudry <tarachoudry>"

<tarachoudry> wrote:

 

> "O Jaganath Das, as well as all the devotees of Gouranga, we fall

and offer

> dandavats at your feet and pray to you that you take the mantle of

Shri

> Sanatan Goswami and reveal the places of Shri mayapur. you are our

guru,

> who else shall i pray to?"

>

> Bhaktivinode could well have offered this pray to Bipin Bihari

Goswami but

> didn't. The question is, why?

>

 

Since no one answered the question, allow me to suggest something.

Without knowing anything else, one could surmise that Bipin Bihari

Gosvami was not qualified enough to be the object of that type of

prayer, unlike Jaganatha Dasa Babaji.

 

Why this is may very well be another issue altogether. Bhaktivinod

Thakur did take initiation from him, so what of that? Perhaps Bipin

Bihari had some qualification, but simply not as much as Jagannath

dasa Babaji. Perhaps Bhaktivinod later rejected Bipin Bihari Gosvami

for some flaw in the latter's character. Perhaps the initiation of

Bhaktivinod by Bipin Bihari had about as much substance as many of

the "mercenary style" initiations of today, where a family pays a

guru money to initiate their caste-brahmin son, despite the lack of

instruction. Without specific historical information, we really don't

know one way or the other.

 

It seems a very tenuous position to insist on the legitimacy of a

particular paramparaa (and conversely, the illegitimacy of other

paramparaas) on the basis of diiksha, when everyone knows how

corrupted and abused the institution of diiksha has become. I believe

I made this point several times with little acknowledgement from the

critics of its significance. Of course, I am not in favor of

abandoning diiksha; I merely want everyone to realize that one can

easily get diiksha initiation without having any qualification.

Similarly, there are many individuals in India who give diiksha who

are also not qualified.

 

To put this another way, I'm sure many of us can think of diiksha

disciples of Srila Prabhupada who fell from his standard of

devotional service. If any one of them were to preach a deviant

doctrine of Gaudiiya Vaishnavism, and claim legitimacy via his

diiksha by Srila Prabhupada, we would reject such claims outright.

There must be substance behind the diiksha or it is really no diiksha

at all. Just like there must be brahminical qualification or else

one's sacred thread is meaningless.

 

Many times it is argued by the critics that Bhaktivinod records that

he took diiksha from Bipin Bihari, and so we must conclude that Bipin

Bihari is his true guru. To this I pointed out that even some

critics, such as Nitai das (whose internet criticisms I alluded to

earlier last month), also claimed diiksha from one guru (Srila

Prabhupada) only to later claim disciplic descent from someone else

entirely. So can we not conclude that Nitai das is actually a

disciple of Srila Prabhupada only? No, was the answer, because Nitai

das rejected his guru.

 

Obviously, we can see where this is going. Some individuals, who are

not very cultured, obviously have no problem with attacking the very

guru who initiated them into spiritual knowledge. Hence, we can

excuse Nitai das and others like him for claiming one guru even

though they were first initiated by someone else. And by the same

logic, we must punish Bhaktivinod Thakur (by insisting that he was

Bipin Bihari's true disciple), because he was a gentleman who did not

condemn his diiksha guru, but instead just quietly left him to take

instruction of Jaganatha dasa Babaji. If Bhaktivinod was truly Bipin

Bihari's disciple in every sense of the word, why would he later

refer to Jaganatha dasa Babaji as his guru? That makes little sense.

 

But it makes perfect sense, gentleman that he was, that Srila

Bhaktivinod would speak highly of his diiksha guru only at first, and

refrain from attacking him outright when he later found that guru to

be unsatisfactory and instead took shelter of Srila Jaganatha dasa

Babaji.

 

Mukunda Datta also made a point earlier which I found interesting.

The critics insist that diiksha is eternal, and this is one of the

points with which they use to criticize Srila Prabhupada's

paramparaa. Yet, many of these same critics (such as Nitai das) were

themselves diiksha disciples of Srila Prabhupada. Why are their

diiksha initiations by Srila Prabhupada not given a similar weight?

Clearly, the answer that paramparaas must be diiksha only is

unacceptable, as we have seen several examples even in our own

paramparaa where this is not the case. If the critics charge that

they rejected Srila Prabhupada because of flaws which they perceived

in his pristine character, then objectively, we also have a right to

consider that it is the critics, and not the guru, whose character is

flawed. Surely that is not unreasonable - just as a disciple can

reject a corrupt guru, so too it must be that a disciple can reject a

bona fide guru because the disciple is himself corrupt. It then

becomes an issue of character debate between Srila Prabhupada and

some of these critics. Suffice it to say, that I don't particularly

want to go there, since I don't want to attack the character of some

of these critics, though I'm sure we could.

 

The bottom line, I think, is that diiksha is a legitimizing tool only

when there is a genuine relationship between the guru and the

disciple. The critics, who insist on following diiksha lines

regardless of whether or not they truly represent legitimate shiksha

connections suggest to me that they put more emphasis on external

ritual than on actual substance. I find it inexcusable that such

insistence on formalities, without attention to the principles of the

aachaaryas (such as Lord Chaitanya's instruction to preach all over

the world as *clearly* documented in Shrii Chaitanya Charitamrita),

is being touted as "orthodox" or "classical" Gaudiiya Vaishnavism,

with the implicit criticism being that Srila Prabhupada is not these

things.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

p.s. Of course, one could argue that we really aren't faithfully

following the shiksha of Madhva, yet we have a connection to them by

diiksha. First of all, we don't know that the connection to Madhva is

a diiksha one since we don't know the initiation details of

Lakshmiipati Tiirtha. Secondly, there is historical and scriptural

precedent to justify the listing from Madhva. Besides which, even

orthodox Maadhvas have more respect for Vaishnavas who follow the

essence behind the ritual rather than blindly following the ritual

alone. That Maadhva aachaaryas can glorify Srila Prabhupada as

Madhva's disciplic descendant, in spite of the fact that his approach

is not consistent with Maadhva traditions, is ample evidence of this.