BG shows physical presence is required

[Guest guest]

Here is an interesting text which shows that physical presence of a guru is

required for diksa. I asked Hari Sauri Prabhu if I could forward it to this

conference.

---------- Forwarded Message ----------

 

Text COM:2326825 (199 lines)

Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP

BG shows physical presence is required

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

> What is this bogus 'when the connection is made philosophy'? Can you tell

> us where it is described that the diksa guru must always make a connection

> whilst physically present on the same planet as his disciple?

 

I never said they have to be on the same planet as the disciple.

Please pay attention to the argument which I will now clarify.

 

The multiple examples of diksha are that there has always in the

past been a physically present guru and a physically present disciple --

they don't necessarily have to be on the same planet. You missed my point

entirely, which I will elaborate on now for your better understanding.

 

As far as the "being on the same planet" argument goes, please read

on:

 

> You have

> just invented this whole thing as far as we can see. B.g 4.1 shows that

> knowledge can be transmitted from one planet to another. Whenever or

> however the connection is made is irrelevant, the point is that the

> transmission of diksa (transcendental knowledge) is not hindered by any

> material distance or encumbrance.

 

1) First off, we are not talking about transference of knowledge, which

can be a function of only siksa. We are talking about diksa, which is a

physical expression of the formal establishment of a spiritual connection

wherein the guru accepts the disciple, gives him the mantra, accepts his

karma and starts him on the road to spiritual emmancipation. We all agree

siksa is not hindered by material distance or encumbrance; what I am saying

is that diksa has only ever occured by physical contact -- there are no

examples to the contrary and BG 4.1 certainly lends no support to the

opposite.

 

2) BG 4.1 does not say the guru and disciple were physically situated

on different planets at the time of transfer of knowledge so you cannot say

that physical presence is irrelevant -- you simply don't know from this

verse. Demigods can travel at will from planet to planet and when the

transference of knowledge occured they could easily have been sitting right

in front of each other.

 

3) To make the claim that Vivasvan instructing Manu is a support for a

departed guru giving diksa is about the most spurious claim the ritviks have

made to date. And in fact a careful reading of BG 4.5 shows quite the

opposite. Srila Prabhupada states in his purport:

 

"Devotees like Arjuna are constant companions of the Lord, and

whenever the Lord incarnates, the associate devotees also incarnate in order

to serve the Lord in different capacities. Arjuna is one of these devotees,

and in this verse it is understood that some millions of years ago when Lord

Krsna spoke the Bhagavad-gita to the sun-god Vivasvan, Arjuna, in a

different capacity, was also present. But the difference between the Lord

and Arjuna is that the Lord remembered the incident whereas Arjuna could not

remember. That is the difference between the part-and-parcel living entity

and the Supreme Lord. Although Arjuna is addressed herein as the mighty hero

who could subdue the enemies, he is unable to recall what had happened in

his various past births...

"Although Arjuna is a devotee of the Lord, he sometimes forgets the

nature of the Lord, but by the divine grace a devotee can at once understand

the infallible condition of the Lord, whereas a nondevotee or a demon cannot

understand this transcendental nature. Consequently these descriptions in

the Gita cannot be understood by demonic brains. Krsna remembered acts which

were performed by Him millions of years before, but Arjuna could not,

despite the fact that both Krsna and Arjuna are eternal in nature. We may

also note herein that a living entity forgets everything due to his change

of body, but the Lord remembers because He does not change His

sac-cid-ananda body. He is advaita, which means there is no distinction

between His body and Himself. Everything in relation to Him is spirit --

whereas the conditioned soul is different from his material body..."

 

Srila Prabhupada clearly says when Krsna spoke to Vivasvan, Arjuna

was present. In my dictionary to be "present" means:

 

1. Existing or happening now; current. 2.a. Being at hand or in attendance.

b. Existing in something specified. 3. Now being considered; actually here

or involved.

 

So according to Srila Prabhupada the parties involved -- Krsna,

Vivasvan and Arjuna -- were all in each other's presence (physical) when the

Gita was spoken.

 

4) According to 4.5 purport even an ever-liberated person like Arjuna

forgets his past activities in previous lives due to the change of body.

This is significant because Arjuna was personally present at the scene

millions of year ago when Krsna instructed Vivasvan and he got the same

instructions; yet 5,000 years ago he could not remember and Krsna had to

instruct him again. Therefore physical presence is very important. It is not

at all irrelevent. Initiation has to be given again when there is a change

of body.

 

> You are missing the point again prabhu. We never said there was no

> connection between these beings at some or many points in time. But Srila

> Prabhupada clearly says the knowledge was at some stage transmitted from

> one planet to another. Therefore diksa does not depend on physical

> proximity.

 

Sorry, it is you who are missing the point my dear prabhu.

 

We are talking of physical proximity. You give the definition of

this to be merely situated in the same physical space. Thus by your

calculation if the parties are situated on different planets they are not in

physical proximity and "therefore diksa does not depend" on it since the

knowledge still spread from planet to planet. This is a very narrow and, in

the context of this discussion, incorrect definition of "physical

proximity".

 

A more accurate definition of physical proximity is : both parties

being alive i.e. physically embodied, at the same time in the same space.

That can mean existing together in a universe or on a planet or in a country

etc.

 

Now, your argument for diksa says that presence of guru in a

particular physical body is irrelevent and you use the example of Visvasvan,

Manu and Iksvaku being on different planets to provide support.

 

I say you have not proved your case from this example. Here's why:

 

Prabhupada says the knowledge was transmitted from one person to

another:

"Lord Krsna originally made Vivasvan His first disciple to

understand the science of Bhagavad-gita."

"In the beginning of the millennium known as Treta-yuga this science

of the relationship with the Supreme was delivered by Vivasvan to Manu.

Manu, being the father of mankind, gave it to his son Maharaja Iksvaku, the

king of this earth planet and forefather of the Raghu dynasty, in which Lord

Ramacandra appeared."

 

Physical connection was definitely there (BG 4.5 purport quoted

above); the consideration of "planet to planet" is irrelevent. It is the

connection established by physical proximity i.e. both parties being alive

i.e. physically embodied, at the same time in the same space (a universe or

a planet or a country etc.) that is the point in discussion. And this was

definitely the case. There was physical proximity. Arjuna was present. When

his physical proximity was broken by his taking another birth, his

discipleship had to be reestablished.

 

This is clear and easy to understand. Again I repeat, there are no

examples of diksa being given by a guru who has departed his physical form.

BG gives evidence that even a liberated soul like Arjuna is affected by loss

of memory due to a change of physical body and must therefore reestablish

his connection with guru in his current body.

 

Furthermore there is no other example of diksha ever having been

given by a guru who has already departed his body.

 

So on the basis of actual examples to support my case and no

examples to support the ritvik case, I will leave it to others to decide who

is conncocting what.

 

> Are you not still undergoing the process of diksa, or is it now complete?

> No it is still going on yet your guru may be on another planet.

 

No, my spiritual progress is not complete. But in this body I

received diksa initation (beginning) according to proper pancartrika

principles. Now Srila Prabhupada may be preaching in another universe what

to speak of on another planet but my progress goes on because I took diksa

from him when he was physically present and now I have his siksa to sustain

me.

 

> Diksa is a

> process that can take many lifetimes, it is not just throwing a banana

> into a fire, is it?

 

More clearly defined, diksa is the beginning of a spiritual process

that can take many lifetimes, and I assume that in my last lifetime I also

took diksa since I took up devotional service in this one; and in this

lifetime the diksa ceremony had to be performed again because like Arjuna I

forgot my previous connection. And if I take another birth, it will have to

be performed again.

 

Diksa is the physical expression of establishing the spiritual link.

That's why there is a distinction between diksa and siksa. And yes, I do

know the quote that siksa and diksa are not different:

 

"According to sastric injunctions, there is no difference between

siksa-guru and diksa-guru, and generally the siksa-guru later on becomes the

diksa-guru. Suniti, however, being a woman, and specifically his mother,

could not become Dhruva Maharaja's diksa-guru." --- SB 4.12.32

 

We are not mayavadis though. Suniti actually gave siksa to Dhruva,

but she could not give diksa. Two words, not one. Two functions not one.

Both aimed at the one ultimate goal but simultaneously different. That's our

philosophy -- acintya bedabeda tattva.

 

In Madya 8.128 Srila Prabhupada says:

 

"The spiritual master who first gives information about spiritual

life is called the vartma-pradarsaka-guru, the spiritual master who

initiates according to the regulations of the sastras is called the

diksa-guru, and the spiritual master who gives instructions for elevation is

called the siksa-guru."

 

Thus he makes a distinction between diksa and siksa. The distinction

is that diksa is the giving of initiation according to the regulations of

sastra and siksa is the instructions for elevation. The act of giving

initations is a physical expression of a spiritual process. It is by

previous example, defined as a connection established during the physical

presence of both guru and disciple, and there is no example to the contrary.

 

Your humble servant,

Hari-sauri dasa

(Text COM:2326825) --------