BG shows physical presence is required

[Guest guest]

Dear Hari Sauri Prabhu, Please accept our humble obeisances. All Glories to

Srila Prabhupada.

 

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

> can be a function of only siksa.

 

It is also a function of diksa, indeed its principal function:

 

" Initiation means receiving the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness."

(C.c. Madhya, 9.61, purport)

 

"Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge

by which he becomes freed from all material contamination."

(C.c. Madhya, 4.111, purport)

 

"Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge

and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the

study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa."

(C.c. Madhya, 15.108, purport)

 

So how you can say it can be function only of siksa? This basic

misunderstanding runs throughout your posting.

 

> 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.

 

What you describe as a 'physical expression of the formal establishment of a

spiritual connection' was often not done by Srila Prabhupada physically.

 

He was often not physically present at ceremonies, particularly later on,

and he had devotees such as Brahmananda ets, chant on beads and do the fire

sacrifice. Gayatri was usually given by magnetic tape and after July 9th

everything was delegated to ritviks and TP's with Srila Prabhupada having

nothing physically to do with any of it. So if you are right many of Srila

Prabhupada's disciples were not actually initiated because there was no

physical contact between the guru and the disciples. This is just historical

fact, nothing to argue about. In actuality diksa does not even need the

physical ceremony at all:

 

"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)

 

"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)

 

So we have established the following in contradiction to your stated

beliefs:

 

1) Physical contact at the point of initiation cannot be necessary since

many times disciples were initiated by Srila Prabhupada without any physical

contact whatsoever.

 

2)And in any case the ceremony itself is merely a formality, the most

important thing is the determination to follow the gurus instructions and

recieve the knowledge.

 

3)And diksa definitely means the transmission of transcendental knowledge

from guru to disciple.

 

So let us see what other excuses you have come up with for continuing to

evade Srila Prabhupada's legally binding orders.

 

> 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.

 

No, Srila Prabhupada clearly says:

 

"So there was no difficulty in communicating with Manu or Manu's son,

Iksvaku. The communication was there, or the radio system was so nice that

communication could be transferred from one planet to another."

(SP Bg. Lecture, 24/8/68)

 

The imperishable science, or divya jnana, was clearly at some stage passing

from one planet to another. How this was done is irrelevant, since our point

was merely that the guru and disciple did not have to be on the same planet

for it to happen. Have you all now decided that the verse does refer to

diksa after all, you did not seem so sure last time? I hope you do since

otherwise you would be contradicting yet another GBC approved paper. Since

we have established above that diksa is the transfer of knowledge, then to

say that diksa was 'communicated' from one planet to another was perfectly

reasonable and in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings.

 

> 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.

 

We never made this claim, please read TFO. We only use the verse to show

that there is variety of interaction in our sampradaya, and that diksa can

be transmitted from one planet to another, bas. This in no way directly

proves that Srila Prabhupada set up a ritvik system to run within ISKCON,

nor have we ever said it did; that is shown seperately in documentation such

as the July 9th letter and the Will.

 

These are now legal matters and you are doing the greatest possible

disservice to Srila Prabhupada by merely prolonging the deviation that will

inevitably need to be corrected.

 

And as shown above you are doing so with not a shred of philosophical

justification. You have not even grasped what is diksa, what is initiation

etc., yet you argue and argue and continually condemn us for trying to put

things straight.

 

> 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.

 

Physical proximity has nothing to do with imparting knowledge, which is the

definition of diksa. And if they had to share the same space :

 

a) Why is this never stated in Srila Prabhupada's books? &

b) Why did Srila Prabhupada not practice it?

 

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

> country etc.

 

If you take physical proximity to mean in the same universe then Srila

Prabhupada is within that category since he said the guru must remain in

the universe until all his disiples are liberated. So now will you embrace

ritvik?

 

> 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.

 

We don't talk about presence of guru in a particular physical body. Where

did this come from? We simply say that physical proximity is not an issue

when it comes to transferring knowledge from guru to disciple, and that such

transference is the very definition of diksa. That is what we and Srila

Prabhupada teach, only you and GBC are not in agreement.

 

> Physical connection was definitely there (BG 4.5 purport quoted

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

 

No, it is relevant since it shows that the knowledge can pass without

physical proximity.

 

> It is the connection established by physical proximity

 

This we have shown is not in our philosophy, nor was it practised by Srila

Prabhupada.

 

> 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.)

 

Srila Prabhupada is still in the universe offering guidance, so then

according to you he is still within physical proximity of any new initiates:

 

"You have asked if it is true that the spiritual master remains in the

universe until all his disciples are transferred to the spiritual sky. The

answer is yes, this is the rule." (Letter to Jayapataka, 11/7/69)

 

So since you now classify being within the same universe as being within the

same physical proximity, will you now please join with us in persuading the

GBC to re-implement the ritvik system? Or will you simply try and find

another concocted reason why not to follow an order directly approved and

issued by your sprirtual master?

 

> 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.

 

Departure is merely another way of not being physically present, and we all

know that physical presence is irrelevant to imparting knowledge:

 

Physical presence is immaterial. Presence of the transcendental sound

received from the Spiritual Master should be the guidance of life. That will

make our spiritual life successful. If you feel very strongly about my

absence you may place my pictures on my sitting places and this will be

source of inspiration for you.

(Letter to Brahmananda and other students, 19/1/67)

 

So we should associate by vibration, and not by the physical presence. That

is real association.

(Lectures SB, 68/08/18)

 

There are two conceptions, the physical conception and the vibrational

conception. The physical conception is temporary. The vibrational conception

is eternal.[...] When we feel separation from Krsna or the Spirirual Master,

we should just try to remember their words or instructions, and we will no

longer feel that separation. Such association with Krsna and the Spiritual

Master should be association by vibration not physical presence. That is

real association.

(Elevation to Krsna Consciousness,(BBT 1973), Page 57)

 

Therefore we should take advantage of the Vani, not the physical presence.

(Letter to Suci Devi Dasi, 4/11/75)

 

It is sometimes misunderstood that if one has to associate with persons

engaged in devotional service, he will not be able to solve the economic

problem. To answer this argument, it is described here that one has to

associate with liberated persons not directly, physically, but by

understanding, through philosophy and logic, the problems of life.

(SB 3:31:48)

 

This principle was taught over and over again. Where is your bogus idea ever

taught that diksa needs physical presence? Anyway now you say same universe

is close enough so please drop all this and join us. Srila Prabhupada has

said he remains in the same universe, so where is the problem?

 

> by loss of memory due to a change of physical body and must therefore

> reestablish his connection with guru in his current body.

 

I do not see what this has got to do with the issue at hand.

 

> Furthermore there is no other example of diksha ever having been

> given by a guru who has already departed his body.

 

You are not this body prabhu. The spiritual master is spiritual, his

transmission of knowledge is not hindered by anything material. Your use of

the historical precedent argument is self-defeating from several different

angles:

 

1) The ritvik system as used by Srila Prabhupada himself when he was present

is unprecedented.

 

2) Historical precedent is in itself no basis for determining truth.

 

3) We follow sastra, which does not give any injunctions against the ritvik

system.

 

4) Srila Prabhupada did many things which were unprecedented.

 

5) Previous acaryas all set their own precedents.

 

6) Parampara examples and teachings support lack of physicality in guru

disciple relationships.

 

7) The parampara has no standard pattern to be followed.

 

8) We do not have enough authorised information to evaluate if the system is

'untraditional'.

 

9) The whole situation is too unique to make any valid comparisons.

 

10) The very objection itself is unprecedented, and thus by it's own

internal logic should be rejected.

 

Please give it up prabhu, you cannot defeat Srila Prabhupada's order, you

are going to lose if you try.

 

Ys, Adri & Madhu