Guest guest Posted May 19, 1999 Report Share Posted May 19, 1999 Dear Sthita-dhi-muni Prabhu, Please accept our humble obeisances. All Glories to Srila Prabhupada. > Siksa is the transmission of transcendental knowlegde, the diksa ceremony > is something that under ideal circumstances formally recognizes both a > siksa relationship and as well as ones acceptance within the family of the > Gaudiya disciplic line. Diksa is also the transmission of transcendental knowledge. > There are quotes by Prabhupada along the lines that after cultivating > siksa, ordinally ones siksa guru becomes one's diksa guru. Who in ISKCON is giving more siksa than Srila Prabhupada. His books will be everyone's siksa for ten thousand years, so by your argument he should also become the diksa guru for everyone also. > Further, for 11 > years Srila Prabhupada accepted Srila Bhaktisiddhanta as his siksa guru, > but never claimed to be his intitiated diksa disciple until > Bhaktisiddhanta formally accepted him a such in a ceremony. He was not practically (ceremonially) initiated for eleven years, but according to Srila Prabhupada the real initiation came when he first understood his Spiritual Masters instructions: "So anyway, from 1922 to 1933 practically I was not initiated, but I got the impression of preaching Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cult. That I was thinking. And that was the initiation by my Guru Maharaja." (SP Lecture, 10/12/76, Hyderabad) The formal ceremony is not even essential: "Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real initiation. My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination, that is initiation." (BTG, Search for the Divine) "...disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion." (SP Letter to Dinesh, 31/10/69) "The chanting of Hare Krsna is our main business, that is real initiation. And as you are all following my instruction, in that matter, the initiator is already there." (SP Letter to Tamal Krsna, 19/8/68) "Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge... knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing." (SP Interview, 16/10/76, Chandigarh) Incidently all this was explained in TFO over 2 & half years ago.) > So siksa and diksa are not entirely identical in meaning. The quotes you > post refer to nature of the siksa relationship, sometimes in letters to > diksa intitiated disciples. Can you prove that Srila Prabhupada is only reffering to siksa, even when writing to diksa disciples. Sounds like speculation to us. > In this case, for example, 'liberated persons' could refer to practically > any pure devotee, not necessarily one's diksa guru, etc etc. But certainly Srila Prabhupada would not be excluded from the catagory of 'liberated persons', and from his instructions we know he was happy to continue on as ISKCON's diksa guru. So on what philosophical basis do you say he can't, since above you admit that 'diksa guru' could (though not necessarily) be one type of pure devotee whose physical association is not needed? You would have to argue that the above injunction applies to all types of pure devotees except the diksa guru. I am sure you would not argue this since it would be pure speculation. > Again, spiritual relationships can take place with a wide variety of > individuals under a wide variety of circumstances. Prabhupada is not > making spiritual relations the exclusive domain of one's diksa guru. Nor is he excluding the diksa guru as some are trying to do. ys, Adri & Madhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 1999 Report Share Posted May 20, 1999 On 19 May 1999, Temple Calcutta wrote: > > > Diksa is also the transmission of transcendental knowledge. > One receives transcendental knowlege from his diksa when there is a viable siksa relationship. Without a service relationship based on pleasing Krsna, there is no transmission of realization, which ultmately comes when Krsna feels pleased -- and not necessarily by getting in the back door of some official maha-bhagavata diksa disciple club. > > There are quotes by Prabhupada along the lines that after cultivating > > siksa, ordinally ones siksa guru becomes one's diksa guru. > > Who in ISKCON is giving more siksa than Srila Prabhupada. His books will be everyone's siksa for ten thousand years, so by your argument he should also become the diksa guru for everyone also. > I would suggest that leaving behind one's external physical presence presents an extraordinary challenge with regards to performing the standard diksa ceremony. Under ordinary circumstances, diksa can follow siksa, but the eternal ritvik proposal remains out of the ordinary.> > "Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real initiation. My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination, that is initiation." (BTG, Search for the Divine)> Yes, seriousness is the real issue. Thus post-humous rtivik diksa intiation, even if it were philosophically credible, would be a secondary consideration at best.> "...disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion."> (SP Letter to Dinesh, 31/10/69)>Yes, that is the point, be it not? The rtvik preoccupation with diksa is simply the flip side of the zonal acarya mentality. Nothing positive, simply a reaction. And the argument can continue on down the list...> > Incidently all this was explained in TFO over 2 & half years ago.> It remains just as convincing today as it was! back th en.> > Can you prove that Srila Prabhupada is only reffering to siksa, even when writing to diksa disciples. Sounds like speculation to us.>That is apparent.> > But certainly Srila Prabhupada would not be excluded from the catagory of 'liberated persons', and from his instructions we know he was happy to> continue on as ISKCON's diksa guru.It almost appears since you have sold your soul to this perspective, that is enough proof. It almost seems as if someone has artificially 'created' an instruction, then claimed to have discovered it was always there.> So on what philosophical basis do you> say he can't, since above you admit that 'diksa guru' could (though not> necessarily) be one type of pure devotee whose physical association is not needed?> I am of the belief Srila Prabhupada could have established something as controversial of post humous rtvik doctrine, if he desired. But your apparent evidence appears to me more of a reaction to negative experiences than anything! else. I t is 'proof' based on misplaced emotions. Let your proof prove itself, not simply time and again declaring it is proven as if that is all the proof we need.> > Nor is he excluding the diksa guru as some are trying to do.>Yes, as a grand disciple of Srila Prabhupada, I have taken diksa initiation into Srila Prabhupada disciplic line. By his grace I feel myself connected.I too became convinced by reading Srila Prabhupada's books, and thus feel comfortable making the claim that the siksa relationship is a viable one.ys,Sthita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 1999 Report Share Posted May 20, 1999 Boy this post seemed to really got mangled -- formatting wise, that is. I am going to try it again. -------------------- > On 19 May 1999, Temple Calcutta wrote: > > > > > > Diksa is also the transmission of transcendental knowledge. > > One receives transcendental knowlege from his diksa when there is a viable siksa relationship. Without a service relationship based on pleasing Krsna, there is no transmission of realization, which ultmately comes when Krsna feels pleased -- and not necessarily by sliding in the back door of some official maha-bhagavata diksa disciple club. > > > There are quotes by Prabhupada along the lines that after cultivating siksa, ordinally ones siksa guru becomes one's diksa guru. > > > > Who in ISKCON is giving more siksa than Srila Prabhupada. His books will be everyone's siksa for ten thousand years, so by your argument he should also become the diksa guru for everyone also. > > I would suggest that leaving behind one's external physical presence presents an extraordinary challenge with regards to performing the standard diksa ceremony. Under ordinary circumstances, diksa can follow siksa, but the eternal ritvik proposal remains out of the ordinary. > > "Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real initiation. My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination, that is initiation." (BTG, Search for the Divine) Yes, seriousness is the real issue. Thus post-humous rtivik diksa intiation, even if it were philosophically credible, would be a secondary consideration at best. > > "...disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion." >> (SP Letter to Dinesh, 31/10/69) Yes, that is the point, be it not? The rtvik preoccupation with diksa is simply the flip side of the zonal acarya mentality. Nothing positive, simply a reaction. And the argument can continue on down the list... > > Incidently all this was explained in TFO over 2 & half years ago. > It appears just as convincing today as it was back then! > > Can you prove that Srila Prabhupada is only reffering to siksa, even when writing to diksa disciples. Sounds like speculation to us. That is apparent. > > But certainly Srila Prabhupada would not be excluded from the catagory of 'liberated persons', and from his instructions we know he was happy to continue on as ISKCON's diksa guru. It could appear that selling one's soul to this perspective is enough proof for this conclusion. It almost seems as if someone has artificially 'created' an instruction, then claimed to have discovered it was always there. > So on what philosophical basis do you say he can't, since above you admit that 'diksa guru' could (though not> necessarily) be one type of pure devotee whose physical association is not needed? > I am of the belief Srila Prabhupada could have established something as controversial of post humous rtvik doctrine, if he desired. But your apparent evidence appears to me more of a reaction to negative experiences than anything constructive. It is a 'proof' based on misplaced emotions. Let your proof prove itself, not simply time and again declaring to us "it has been proven" as if that is all the proof we require. > > Nor is he excluding the diksa guru as some are trying to do. Yes, as a grand disciple of Srila Prabhupada, I have taken diksa initiation into Srila Prabhupada disciplic line. By his grace I feel myself connected. I too became convinced by reading Srila Prabhupada's books, and thus feel comfortable making the claim that the siksa relationship is a viable one. ys, Sthita Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.