Diksha (was Satyanarayana das [final, and then] other things)

[Guest guest]

achintya, "dark_knight_9" <dark_knight_9>

wrote:

 

Considering that lineage in

> Mahaprabhu's line is traced according to diksa, it is

> automatically

> understood. The very fact that sadhakas are advised to offer

> obeisances and prayers to every member of their respective

paramparas

> proves this fact.

 

I will preface all of the following comments by saying that there is

some confusion here as to what we mean by "diiksha." By diiksha I am

referring to the formal ceremony of initiating a "disciple" with the

transmission of mantras, etc. It is an undisputed fact that this

ceremony goes on over and over again in India and elsewhere for

people who either don't have the qualification or lose the

qualification (for that matter, it happens even in ISKCON).

 

This is not a matter of controversy, it is simply a fact. If one

cannot see this, then it might be appropriate to inquire as to what

color the sky is in his world.

 

What Sanjay Dadlani is referring to by "diksha" is the essence of

that ceremony, namely the delivering of the disciple from mAyA and

initiating him into spiritual knowledge. Obviously, I am not

referring to that definition of dIksha when I speak of hamburger-

eating caste brahmins receiving the sacred thread. There were

abundant context clues in what I wrote so that it should be obvious

to others which sense of the word "dIksha" I was referring to. It is

just like the word "brahmin," which has a correct definition (one who

knows Brahman) and a less correct, but nevertheless common definition

(one who is born into a Brahmin family and has sacred thread).

Obviously, one has to use common sense and context to appreciate

which sense of the word is being discussed. When it is obvious that

one is referring to one definition of the word, pretending to refute

his arguments by arguing with the other definition of the word is

clearly pointless.

 

The reason we are even dealing with the "formal ceremony" definition

of diiksha is because of the allegation of Satyanarayana et. al. that

Srila Prabhupada's paramparaa is not bona fide because of the lack of

formal, ceremonial, initiation between some members, such as Srila

Bhaktivinod and Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji. We conceed that, as far

as we know and within the limits of our knowledge of the subject

matter, some of these predecessor aachaaryas did not get the fire

yagna and other accoutrements that typically accompany diiksha.

 

But on the other hand, many people have "diiksha" that consist *only*

of those external trappings and are nevertheless devoid of the

substance of diiksha - the transmission of divine knowledge and

upliftment of the disciple. Having the substance and the form is

nice, but if we had to judge what is diiksha by only one of the two

criteria, we would clearly have to choose the substance over the form

if we are to remain true to shaastras.

 

There is no doubt that all of the connections in the Gaudiiya-

Saarasvata paramparaa satisfy the essential criteria of diiksha as

provided in the definition of Sanjay Dadlani. But this might be

a "faith" issue, since one cannot prove this to someone who has

already decided not to believe it. We can only bring up supporting

evidence by comparing the teachings of Srila Prabhupada with those

earlier in the paramparaa, just as we judge the illegitimacy of

others who claim to be Gaudiiya Vaishnavas by pointing out the

differences between their teachings and those previous to them.

 

On the other hand, my point is that Satyanarayana das et. al. can NOT

prove that there was NO diiksha, because such things as transmission

of divine knowledge are not apparent to the conditioned senses. For

him to say that such divine knowledge was not transmitted is very

much a blind faith statement, and those who hold to this should be

treated as such. That is, of course, unless he can bring up

supporting evidence showing a philosophical deviation. Thus far, we

have not seen any proof of differing interpretations of Achintya Beda

Abedha Tattva between Srila Sarasvati Thakura and Sri Chaitanya - up

to this point we have only seen their qualms about following of

various ancillary dharmas.

 

(It is interesting to note what will likely be the rebuttal to the

above. The Satyanarayana camp will probably argue that the ancillary

dharmas like varnaashrama, modes of dress, style of initiation, etc

are also divine knowledge and thus differences in their execution

also reflect incorrect transmission of divine knowledge and thus

invalidates the claimed diiiksha. But then, since the Satyanarayana

camp holds that all Gaudiiyas are above varnaashrama, should wear

only white, not wear sacred thread, and in all other respects, reject

varnaashrama, why does the argument not apply even more properly to

them? Since Sri Chaitanya did follow varnaashrama dharma, should we

then assume that the Gosvamis did not have proper diiksha because

they emphasized the path of the paramahamsa? Obviously, if they wish

to claim that the Gosvamis were not loyal to Mahaaprabhu because of

this difference of emphasis, then and only then would the above

constitute an argument.)

 

Therefore, either Satyanarayana must rely on his blind faith

allegations that divine knowledge was not correctly passed on, -OR-

he must judge that diiksha did not take place in some links of the

Saarasvata paramparaa based on the absence of the external pomp and

ceremony, which are the only things which can be verified by the

senses.

 

Hence, we must reflect on the actual significance of this. Since

Satyanarayana cannot judge that true diiksha has not occurred, he can

only presume that it did not occur because of the absence of formal

ceremony.

 

Therefore, he is emphasizing form over substance, and that is very

much against the spirit of Chaitanya Vaishnavism. I hope I don't even

need to show why, since that seems so simple and obvious to most of

us. It is like judging a person to be less than a brahmin because he

is not wearing a sacred thread. We know that casteist Hindus do that,

but not transcendentally situated Vaishnavas. The more we examine

this issue, the more it seems that the members of the Satyanarayana

camp have taken a position that is analogous to the caste-

discriminating, non-Vaishnava Hindu, because both of them emphasize

external appearance over the actual qualification.

 

Before anything more is said, we must reflect on this.

 

yours,

 

- K