RE: Diksa or Siksa Sampradaya.

[Guest guest]

At 04:18 AM 3/4/02 -0500, WWW: Balaji Prasad (Singapore) wrote:

>okay. I will start it as a *fresh* new thread, in both the conferences.

 

Before you do that, you may want to make sure that all the texts will

actually be posted in both conferences. Braja may not want to post texts by

non-granddisciples in GD and AKC has many such members. Thus, GD members

would still only receive a subset of the texts, which might be confusing.

Unless Braja decides to make an exception for this topic, it may be best if

there are two entirely separate discussions on the two conferences to make

sure everyone sees all the texts and their comments.

 

>Siksa guru and diksa guru are identical, and importance of siksa is quite well

>explained by our founder acarya in the first chapter of Adi Lila of Caitanya

>Caritamrita, and that is sufficient and adequate for me.

 

Well, but who would you then place in the lineage as Bhaktivinod Thakur's

guru? Bipin Bihari? He was his diksa guru, but we don't have him on the

altar or in any list I have seen.

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 4 Mar 2002, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> Well, but who would you then place in the lineage as Bhaktivinod Thakur's

> guru? Bipin Bihari? He was his diksa guru, but we don't have him on the

> altar or in any list I have seen.

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

Who do you keep on your altar. Your own diksa guru or some other siksa guru?

 

The issue is not that.

 

Krishna says, evam parampara praptam.... and later goes on to say,

upa*deksya*nti te *jnanam*. He could have said upa*siksyanti*...

 

We do not want to use term "siksa parampara" or "diksa parampara". Simply

call it parampara, and that includes both diksa and siksa.

 

Hare Krishna,

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

[Guest guest]

At 07:23 PM 3/4/02 -0500, WWW: Balaji Prasad (Singapore) wrote:

>On 4 Mar 2002, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

> > Well, but who would you then place in the lineage as Bhaktivinod Thakur's

> > guru? Bipin Bihari? He was his diksa guru, but we don't have him on the

> > altar or in any list I have seen.

> > Ys,

> > Madhusudani dasi

>

>Who do you keep on your altar. Your own diksa guru or some other siksa guru?

 

I'm not sure that who I keep on my altar is necessarily a reflection of the

siksa/diksa nature of the whole parampara. :-)

 

If you think only diksa gurus should be on the altar, how come then that we

don't have Bipin Bihari on ISKCON altars? After all he was Bhaktivinod

Thakur's diksa guru.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 4 Mar 2002, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> At 07:23 PM 3/4/02 -0500, WWW: Balaji Prasad (Singapore) wrote:

> >On 4 Mar 2002, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

> > > Well, but who would you then place in the lineage as Bhaktivinod

Thakur's

> > > guru? Bipin Bihari? He was his diksa guru, but we don't have him on the

> > > altar or in any list I have seen.

> > > Ys,

> > > Madhusudani dasi

> >

> >Who do you keep on your altar. Your own diksa guru or some other siksa

guru?

>

> I'm not sure that who I keep on my altar is necessarily a reflection of the

> siksa/diksa nature of the whole parampara. :-)

 

Exactly. You got it just right. perfect. I got the answer out of you, with

out answering your question, just by counter questioning.

 

Now,

 

I and You understnad the term "siksa guru"

I and You understand the term "diksa guru"

We both understand they are equally important in a devotee's life.

We both understand they are identical.

We both understand the term parampara or guru parampara.

When we say *guru*parampara guru includes all the 4 types of gurus.

 

Now my objection is if some one coins a term 'siksa parampara' or ' diksa

paramprara' or 'vartma pradarsaka parampara' or 'Caitaya parampara' as those

terminology does not exist anywhere, atleast as far as my knowledge goes our

founder acarya never used such terminology.

 

If you call a parampara as 'siksa parampara' you will be doing injustice to

other gurus, like diksa guru.

If you call it a diksa parampara then you will be doing injustice to other

gurus like siksa gurus.

 

So simply call it the parampara or guru parampara and it includes everything.

 

Enough damage has been done by some, who intelligently used such terminology

and taken away devotees from ISKCON, in the name of "siksa parampara".

 

And the following is simply a straw man, as I never said anything like that.

And I will not try to answer it, as it is simply a straw man.

 

> If you think only diksa gurus should be on the altar, how come then that we

> don't have Bipin Bihari on ISKCON altars? After all he was Bhaktivinod

> Thakur's diksa guru.

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

[Guest guest]

At 09:48 PM 3/4/02 -0500, WWW: Balaji Prasad (Singapore) wrote:

>Exactly. You got it just right. perfect. I got the answer out of you, with

>out answering your question, just by counter questioning.

 

Unfortunately, I think you were a little too hasty in your self

congratulations. You still have not answered my question. Who I keep on my

home altar and who Srila Prabhupada instructed all of ISKCON to keep on its

temple altars are slightly different matter.

 

If you can't answer the question about why we have Bhaktivinod Thakur's

siksa guru (Jagannatha das Babaji ) rather than his diksa guru (Bipin

Bihari) on all of ISKCON altars, that's OK. But I think the fact that this

is official ISKCON policy speaks to the fact that sometimes the siksa

linkages in our parampara are more important than the diksa linkages.

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 4 Mar 2002, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

>But I think the fact that this

> is official ISKCON policy speaks to the fact that sometimes the siksa

> linkages in our parampara are more important than the diksa linkages.

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

There has been never disagreement on that. That is explained to stress the

importance of siksa which is altogether a different subject. The disagreement

is to call our parampara as 'siksa parampara' simply because some of the links

in the parampara siksa gurus are more prominent. In that case by similar

logic I can call our parampara as 'diksa parampara' and very well defend it.

Infact the meaning of the word diksa includes siksa in sanskrit. "divyam

jnanam ksapayati iti diksa". And "siksa" simply means training, and not

'transmitting knowledge'. Only diksa means transmitting of knowledge'. This

transcendental knowledge is transmitted by "diksa" and not by "siksa",

literally by the meaning of the words.

 

"siksa" is theroy. "diksa" is practicals.

 

"diksa is the actual thing". "siksa is supporting diksa"

 

A woman cannot get a child simply by "theory". A woman can get a child by

insertion of the seed, by her husband. Just an analogy. The other family

members, the doctors, nurses, books on pregnency and child birth all cannot

give conception. The husband's role is very important. The seed has to come

by the husband. After the birth so many may play a role in the upbringing of

the child. They can all be likened to siksa gurus, but they cannot replace

the role of the father, who can be likened to diksa guru.

 

Both the terms 'siksa parampara' and 'diksa parampara' can be very well

defended by logic, but the point is they can be refuted too. So why not call

simply parampara or guru parampara. Parampara does not flow only by diksa

alone or siksa alone, but a combination of both. So why do you want to call

it by a biased term 'siksa parampara'? Then I will call it as 'diksa

parampara'.

 

The disagreement is in the usage of the term 'siksa parampara' as it can mean

there is no diksa at all, and there is only siksa involved in our parampara.

This term is misleading. Our founder acarya has never used this term.

 

Hare Krishna,

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Das.

[Guest guest]

> Unfortunately, I think you were a little too hasty in your self

> congratulations. You still have not answered my question. Who I keep

> on my home altar and who Srila Prabhupada instructed all of ISKCON

> to keep on its temple altars are slightly different matter.

 

If you are basing your understanding of guru-tattva on what you told

me once - that you found a certain person to be advanced in his

spiritual understanding because he had all kinds of gurus on his altar

besides Prabhupada, incl. Jesus and Lalita-prasad - then I doubt that

anything Bhadra Govinda prabhu says will be at your level of

understanding, so best to stop badgering him incessantly.

 

Ys, jahnu das

 

 

> If you can't answer the question about why we have Bhaktivinod

> Thakur's siksa guru (Jagannatha das Babaji ) rather than his diksa

> guru (Bipin Bihari) on all of ISKCON altars, that's OK. But I think

> the fact that this is official ISKCON policy speaks to the fact that

> sometimes the siksa linkages in our parampara are more important

> than the diksa linkages. Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>

> Krishna says, evam parampara praptam.... and later goes on to say,

> upa*deksya*nti te *jnanam*. He could have said upa*siksyanti*...

 

But before that, what first was asked for was to approach,

inquire and serve a spiritual master. That is the siksa and

following the siksa. Without it, no "diksa" (imparting the

knowledge).

 

In this verse, "imparting knowledge" (or "diksyanti") does

not seem at all to be referring to the formal initiation.

It is not even necessarily "diksa guru" the one who is

imparting that knowledge. But the one whom you follow and

serve, inquiring from submissively.. and the one who is

giving ("imparting") you the knowledge, when pleased with

such attitude..

As I said, there is apparent mix-up of what we speak about.

"Diksa" as the process of imparting the knowledge from guru

to disciples, and "diksa" as formal initiation. Why to insist

in discussing different issues under the pretext it's the

same?

 

 

And why would be so difficult to simply acknowledge the

formal initiation (that is also called "diksa") is not at

all a requirement for having next acarya/successor coming

from the previous one? That it is the *following* in the

footsteps of the previous acrya that is of real importance.

Not who was initiated by whom. Yes, ok, to be initiated is

required and important. Nobody is objecting.

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

> > Enough damage has been done by some, who intelligently used such

> > terminology and taken away devotees from ISKCON, in the name of "siksa

> > parampara".

 

 

Ah, so *that's* the fear. That's understandable, but hardly reason enough

to revise history. Guess we just have to make clear that diksa is

necessary, even though some/many (?) links in our lineage are based on

siksa, not diksa.

 

Is that a sufficient compromise?

Madhu

[Guest guest]

On 5 Mar 2002, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

It is just not that we tell people that diksa is necessry. We must tell

people, that parampara flows through diksa only. Siksa is only supportive.

The conception of a woman takes place only, by the seed of the husband. By

right every parampara is diksa parampara. Nothing so special about our

parampara.

 

Just because the husband, dies after conception, or leaves the wife and goes

away, or deserts the wife after the child is born, it does not mean the

progeny took place or can continue with out the seed of the husband. Just

because some of those unfortunate things happen among certain families or

individuals, we cannot say that progeny can continue with out marriage.

Parampara flows through diksa and diksa alone. Siksa is simply supportive.

 

The child born and brought up, after the departure of the father has also the

right of inheritence to his father's property, the same in our parampara. Or

even if some uncle is more powerful in the family than one's own father, and

that powerful uncle has no good progeny, then all the uncles, will invest

their inheritence to this young man who is most qualified, and not to their

own less qualified sons. The less qualified sons will act as supportive to the

most qualified brother or cousin brother. The same with parampara.

 

Calling any parampara as 'siksa parampara' is meaningless. As it would mean

that the parampara flows through siksa alone. That is it can mean, I have

siksa guru, my guru has a siksa guru, his siksa guru has a siksa guru, and so

on upto Lord Krishna. There has never been any diksa. How did any one of

them come into existance with our diksa in the first place.

 

It is like telling, this is my uncle, this my uncle's uncle, this is my

uncle's uncle's uncle, but how did I come into existance, with out my own

father, or any one of those uncles came into existence with our their own

father.

 

There will be one head of the family, who is most qualified (usually it is the

eldest son, but not always necessarily, but it is by qualification), among a

number of brothers and cousin brothers. It does not mean the family will

continue with out marriage, but simply by instructions.

 

That is what it boils down to when, you call a parampara as 'siksa parampara'.

 

If you really want to convey the complete truth, and not in part, then call it

simply parampara, or guru parampara. Don't call it 'siksa parampara' or

'diksa parampara' which will be only partial truth.

 

And, may I know who suggested / hinted that we must revise history as you have

written below? History cannot be changed, and the princliple of parampara can

also be not changed, by any one. It continues by diksa, supported by siksa.

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

 

CC: "GD"

 

> Ah, so *that's* the fear. That's understandable, but hardly reason enough

> to revise history. Guess we just have to make clear that diksa is

> necessary, even though some/many (?) links in our lineage are based on

> siksa, not diksa.

>

> Is that a sufficient compromise?

> Madhu

[Guest guest]

Cc, Madhya 15.108:

 

"One does not have to undergo initiation or execute the activities

required before initiation. One simply has to vibrate the holy name with

his lips. Thus even a man in the lowest class [candala] can be delivered."

 

Srila Prabhupada's purport cites many instructive verses.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

On 5 Mar 2002, M. Tandy wrote:

 

>

> Cc, Madhya 15.108:

>

> "One does not have to undergo initiation or execute the activities

> required before initiation. One simply has to vibrate the holy name with

> his lips. Thus even a man in the lowest class [candala] can be delivered."

>

> Srila Prabhupada's purport cites many instructive verses.

>

> MDd

 

And Srila Prabhupada concludes towards the end "One should therefore be

initiated properly according to revealed scriptures, under the direction of a

bonafide spiritual master."

 

Although at first glance, this verse apparently indicates, that one does not

have to undergo initiation.

 

This is one of my mooo..........ost favourite verses. Thank Your Grace

Mukunda Prabhu for posting it.

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

 

CC: "GD"

[Guest guest]

> We must tell

> people, that parampara flows through diksa only. Siksa is only

> supportive.

 

Not according to the mentioned verses BG 4.1 and 4.2. Neither

according to Srila Prabhupada's statements like:

 

"Regarding disciplic succession coming from Arjuna, disciplic

succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated

officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic

conclusions."

(SPL to Dinesh, 31st October, 1968)

 

Prabhupada clearly did not define the disciplic succession in

your terms, as that flows through the formal initiation only

where giving/receiving/following the instruction would be "only

supportive". Indeed, the opposite seems rather to be the case.

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

> > "One does not have to undergo initiation or execute the activities

> > required before initiation. One simply has to vibrate the holy name with

> > his lips. Thus even a man in the lowest class [candala] can be

> > delivered."

 

> And Srila Prabhupada concludes towards the end "One should therefore be

> initiated properly according to revealed scriptures, under the direction

> of a bonafide spiritual master."

 

Prabhupada did also explain, in the same place, why "one

"should therefore" take a forma initiation -- because it

enables one to get engaged in pancaratra-vidhi and thus

in turn get his KC quicker awaken, as well as have the

bigger opportunity to avoid considering the maha-mantra as

a material vibration:

 

"In other words, the chanting of the Hare Krsna maha-mantra

is so powerful that it does not depend on official initiation,

but if one is initiated and engages in pancaratra-vidhi (Deity

worship), his Krsna consciousness will awaken soon, and his

identification with the material world will be vanquished."

 

And the very conclusion, that is in full agreement with the

verse itself:

 

"The offenseless chanting of holy name does not depend on the

initiation process. Although initiation may depend on purascarya

or purascarana, the actual chanting of the holy name does not

depend on puruscarya-vidhi, or the regulative principles."

 

 

Yet, we do accept the formal initiation as the integral

part of the KC process, without any doubt -- because we

are *instructed* to do so. But that we must tell the people

how the disciplic succession flaws only through this formal

initiation while the instruction business is "only supportive"...

I wouldn't do it. Because I don't think that we are really

instructed like that.

 

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

 

Though this line of discussion has already gone further

away from the point where it originally was dwelling on:

The necessity or no necessity of an acarya being formally

initiated (or being even a direct) disciple of the previous

acarya.

 

Have we yet got some common understanding/conclusions on this

one, Bhadra Govinda prabhu?

 

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

On 6 Mar 2002, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

> > We must tell

> > people, that parampara flows through diksa only. Siksa is only

> > supportive.

>

> Not according to the mentioned verses BG 4.1 and 4.2. Neither

> according to Srila Prabhupada's statements like:

>

> "Regarding disciplic succession coming from Arjuna, disciplic

> succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated

> officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic

> conclusions."

> (SPL to Dinesh, 31st October, 1968)

>

> Prabhupada clearly did not define the disciplic succession in

> your terms, as that flows through the formal initiation only

> where giving/receiving/following the instruction would be "only

> supportive". Indeed, the opposite seems rather to be the case.

>

>

> - mnd

 

Dear Mahanidhi Prabhu,

 

PAMHO. AGTSP.

 

The key words in your above quote is *always*. It means, in *general*

disciplic succession goes through siksa and diksa. There are exceptions to

the rule.

 

"Disciplic succession does not *always* mean that one has to be initiated

officially." It means most of the times it means that and some times it does

not mean that.

 

I can post many quotes to give you the meaning of 'diksa' and 'siksa' the

meaning the way I have been trying to explain to you, against your above

quote.

 

I don't have the above complete letter, right now, but what I understand is,

some one is asking Srila Prabhupad, where is the disciplic succession coming

from Arjuna, or why do we consider ourselves in the line of Vyasa and not in

line of Arjuna, something like that. Actually it is same. That is

considering ourselves as followers of Arjuna or in line of Arjuna is not

wrong. That is what it means is to *accept disciplic conclusions*.

 

Like we can consider ourselves, as Rupanugas, in line with Rupa and nothing

wrong in considering ourselves as followers of Sanatananungas. That is what

Prabhupada is trying to explain above. Like some one may ask where is the

line coming from Sanatana, if we consider ourselves, as Rupanugas.

 

Another explanation, is as I said there are exceptions to the above rule.

Some nityasiddhas, may not have to undergo purificatory processes such as

diksa etc,. Like Sukadeva Goswami just walked away, from his mother's womb.

It is not 'always'. Those are exceptional cases.

 

For CONDITIONAL SOULS, NITYA BADDHAS (Caps not to indicate anger but stresing

the point), the explanation of diksa and siksa what I gave you holds good.

Diksa is giving the bija and siksa is supportive training to make one qualify

to accept the bija.

 

Tasmad gurupadasrayam, krishna siksadi diksanam... that is the process by all

revealed scriptures for conditioned souls.

 

The parampara listing in Bg As It Is is not inclusive. There are big gaps

there. Everyone of them have a diksa guru, and every one them have given a

formal diksa to their disciples, and all those disciples are not mentioned in

the big gaps. There are many branches and sub branches also. There are

thousands and thousands in the parampara not just that 30+ in the list in Bg.

 

That is what it means to "accept the disciplic conclusions" in the letter of

Srila Prabhupada to Mr.Dinesh.

 

Can you please post the complete letter of Srila Prabhupada to Dinesh? Quite

interesting.

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

 

CC : "GD". Sorry, this quote of yours is quite interesting and I would like

to share the discussion with friends at "GD".

[Guest guest]

On 6 Mar 2002, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

> Though this line of discussion has already gone further

> away from the point where it originally was dwelling on:

> The necessity or no necessity of an acarya being formally

> initiated (or being even a direct) disciple of the previous

> acarya.

>

> Have we yet got some common understanding/conclusions on this

> one, Bhadra Govinda prabhu?

>

> - mnd

 

The discussion has not gone further away anywhere. I made a point in my very

first text, and until now I am holding on to that. I have not changed one

word. The discussion was, the word 'siksa parampara' is misleading. It means

as if our parampara is something special, and that there is no 'diksa'

involved to become a bonafide disciple or bonafide guru in the parampara. It

is not really so. All of them listed in Bg as it is, have taken formal diksa

and they have all given formal diksa to their disciples. Simply the parampara

is listed to show the most prominent acaryas. There are so many other lines,

branches and sub branches. What about them?

 

The 'siksa sampradaya' proponents just took that list and started explaining

ours is a siksa line, siksa parampara etc,.. The law of disciplic succession

does not change simply by such interpretations.

 

> The necessity or no necessity of an acarya being formally

> initiated (or being even a direct) disciple of the previous

> acarya.

 

There was never a disagreement on this. He may not have taken diksa from the

immediate previous parampara acarya, but he **MUST** have taken diksa from any

bonafide member of the parampara. That diksa must be valid, atleast at the

time when he was taking diksa. His diksa guru may not be as powerful, or

greater than his siksa guru, who is the immediate previous parampara acarya.

But he must have a diksa guru. Otherwise there is no meaning to the law of

disciplic succession.

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

[Guest guest]

> And Srila Prabhupada concludes towards the end "One should therefore be

> initiated properly according to revealed scriptures, under the direction

> of a bonafide spiritual master."

 

thankyou bhadra govinda pr for saving many of us who, in absence of your

clarification, might have come under a wrong impression that Srila

Prabhupada said initiation wasn't needed.

 

Hare Krishna.

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

>

> The discussion has not gone further away anywhere. I made a point in my

> very first text, and until now I am holding on to that. I have not

> changed one word. The discussion was, the word 'siksa parampara' is

> misleading. It means as if our parampara is something special, and that

> there is no 'diksa' involved to become a bonafide disciple or bonafide

> guru in the parampara.

 

Well, it is up to your choice to rather stick to that

meaning of this "painful" term as you choose to give it,

rather than to the maning offered by those who apply

that term. It in no way is supposed to mean that there

is no diksa (a formal initiation) involved.

 

Again, please read Bg. verses 4.1 and 4.2, and you will get

the impression of what that term was referring to -- the

passing down this science of the sublime yoga system *rather*

by the mean of getting *instructed* (sanskrit term, "siksa")

than by the mean of getting formally initiated (also known

as "diksa").

 

 

> > The necessity or no necessity of an acarya being formally

> > initiated (or being even a direct) disciple of the previous

> > acarya.

>

> There was never a disagreement on this. He may not have taken diksa from

> the immediate previous parampara acarya, but he **MUST** have taken diksa

> from any bonafide member of the parampara.

 

:-) And we go beating around the bush..

 

Nobody is objecting the need for the formal initiation. So

long so we do not start claiming that we must tell people that

"parampara flows through diksa only" and that "siksa is only

supportive". But look, on the end of the day, we come to the

hope/assumption that he (an acarya in the line of the

disciplic succession) **MUST** have taken diksa from any

of bona fide guru. Well, maybe even not. What if the initiator

was a "kula-guru" that is not even in the line of that very

disciplic succession? What do we know for sure? Was Arjuna's

formal diksa initiator in the line of the disciplic succession?

I doubt, for how could that be possible when the line was said

to be broken, the science of yoga was lost, and it was just

about to be reestablished by Krsna??

 

But what know for sure, though, is -- who did follow whose

siksa. That is the parampara. As Prabhupada clearly defined it:

 

"Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion."

 

He did not say, "Disciplic succession means to get formally

initiated", did he? No, he did not. So why would it be still

so dangerous or misleading to hear how this line of our parampara

is based rather upon the system of giving/receiving instruction

("siksa") than the system of the giving/receiving the formal

initiation ("diksa")?

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

>

> thankyou bhadra govinda pr for saving many of us who, in absence of your

> clarification, might have come under a wrong impression that Srila

> Prabhupada said initiation wasn't needed.

 

Well, then I must assume that these "many of us" who were

"saved" by Bhadra Govinda from assuming something like that

have never peeped onto a single page of any of Prabhupada's

books, nor have heard a single class of any of ISKCON

preachers. Nor are capable of uttering a single word

of request for any clarification in the case of any possible

doubt..

 

In other words, just see how easily one can be "brainwashed"

into something without even making a single eye-blink on his

own, and how easily one can be "saved" from that misery on the

strength of our expertise in clarifying the matter for them.

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

At 04:20 PM 3/6/02 +0530, you wrote:

> >

> > Enough damage has been done by some, who intelligently used such

> > terminology and taken away devotees from ISKCON, in the name of "siksa

> > parampara".

>

>I wouldn't call it intelligent.

 

How about "cleverly"?

[Guest guest]

On 6 Mar 2002, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

> Again, please read Bg. verses 4.1 and 4.2, and you will get

> the impression of what that term was referring to -- the

> passing down this science of the sublime yoga system *rather*

> by the mean of getting *instructed* (sanskrit term, "siksa")

> than by the mean of getting formally initiated (also known

> as "diksa").

 

Knowledge is passed down by siksa. Jnana is passed down by siksa. Jnana means

theory. This is passed down by siksa. There is no disagreement on that. As

I told you earlier read 4.1-4.2 with 4.34. The name of this 4th chapter is

"Transcendental Knowledge". Siksa instructions, we get knowledge. Jnana

should be followed by Vijnana.

 

Even that knowledge, Krishna is telling we must accept it in parampara

process. That is even theory, you must learn from a bonafide guru and not

from any Tom Dick and Harry.

 

In 4.34 Krishna explains this knowledge is received by diksa. This verse and

CC verse "tasmad guru padasrayam, Krishna diksadi siksanam are " the same.

Krishna is talking about shelter, diksa and siksa.

 

I will give you another anology. So you will understand.

 

Agricultural field and the seed. Any amount of hard labour in the field is

simply a waste of time, if there is no bija.

 

Diksa is bija. Planting the seed. Siksa is instructions, of watering the

seed, removing the weeds etc,.

 

Diksa and siksa can come from the same guru or from different gurus. But for

obtaining the fruits, both diksa and siksa are a must. Whether they come from

the same guru or different gurus, diksa and siksa are a must. Diksa guru is

one. And siksa gurus may be many. With out diksa, with out the seed where is

the question of siksa.

 

Parampara means there should be diksa and siksa. Otherwise it is not

parampara. There is no meaning for the word parampara if there is no diksa.

With out the seed, what is the use of hard labour of cultivation?

 

> Nobody is objecting the need for the formal initiation.

 

You have been telling parampara can go on by siksa. Diksa is not a necessity.

Simply by siksa it goes on. That is what you have been trumpeting. Siksa

Sampradaya. Our's is a siksa sampradaya. Our's is not Diksa line etc,. Are

you not?

 

I said, both will be wrong. If some one says, with out siksa just by diksa

alone the parampara can go on he is wrong. The seed will die, or plant will

die with out siksa. And if some one says, by siksa alone the parampara can go

on, he is also wrong. With out the seed where is the question of the plant and

fruit.

 

Parampara, disciplic succession goes on by diksa *AND* siksa.

 

>So

> long so we do not start claiming that we must tell people that

> "parampara flows through diksa only" and that "siksa is only

> supportive".

 

Thanks for getting the point atlast. I said previously, I can take that line

of argument and prove that by diksa alone parampara flows. But see it is not

actually correct. But now you are not saying that the person who coined this

phrase, very well knows, what he means, it is such a simple thing. For

defending 'siksa sampradaya' you will say that. If I coin a phrase by "diksa

alone the parampara goes, siksa is supportive", you make noise. Please try to

understand. I deliberately created that phrase, so you will ask. My strategy

worked. Hope you now atleast get the point.

 

Parampara means diksa and siksa. Not diksa alone or siksa alone. Or any one

of them is *optional*. Both are a must. One cannot just take diksa and

forget about siksa. Or one cannot get siksa, about transcendental knowledge

and not get diksa still he will not get the fruit.

 

>But look, on the end of the day, we come to the

> hope/assumption that he (an acarya in the line of the

> disciplic succession) **MUST** have taken diksa from any

> of bona fide guru. Well, maybe even not. What if the initiator

> was a "kula-guru" that is not even in the line of that very

> disciplic succession? What do we know for sure? Was Arjuna's

> formal diksa initiator in the line of the disciplic succession?

> I doubt, for how could that be possible when the line was said

> to be broken, the science of yoga was lost, and it was just

> about to be reestablished by Krsna??

 

> But what know for sure, though, is -- who did follow whose

> siksa. That is the parampara. As Prabhupada clearly defined it:

>

> "Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion."

 

And the disciplic conclusion is, siksa and diksa are a must.

 

> He did not say, "Disciplic succession means to get formally

> initiated", did he?

 

Srila Prabhupada said, disciplic succession means, diksa and siksa both.

 

Formal initiation does not mean fire sacrifice, which I think you are

imagining, but planting the seed.

 

Diksa means giving mantra, seed. Whether the mantra is given in a temple with

fire sacrifice, or like Narada gave the mantra to Dhruva in the forest, mantra

is a must. Bija is a must. Then you can cultivate that bija by siksa.

 

>No, he did not. So why would it be still

> so dangerous or misleading to hear how this line of our parampara

> is based rather upon the system of giving/receiving instruction

> ("siksa") than the system of the giving/receiving the formal

> initiation ("diksa")?

 

Dangerous. Simply because even learned scholars like your grace is becoming

biased, and thinking that parampara can flow by siksa alone, or hinting that

diksa is optional, and saying ours is siksa parampara, because,......I gave

the other reasons already.

 

So let us simply call any parampara as guru parampara.

 

Your humble servant,

Bhadra Govinda Dasa.

 

CC: "GD"

[Guest guest]

>

> How about "cleverly"?

 

or "cunningly" ?

 

Hare Krishna.

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

> In 4.34 Krishna explains this knowledge is received by diksa.

 

You mean "diksa" that happens in a couple minutes of our

life and that we call -- "a formal initiation"? Well, then

let's frame the picture of that moment and nail it onto

the wall, so we can show to any of our visitors:

"See, that was when the knowledge was imparted onto me. I

received the knowledge, you know.."

 

Initiation is just that -- initiation (beginning). While the

principle upon which the guru-disciple relationship is based

on (that this verse speaks about) is the universal and ongoing

process regardless of wether the guru is an initiator or an

instructor. Both do impart the knowledge. "Diksa" (imparting

the knowledge) in this context is not the exclusive privilege

of an initiator, in the exclusive moment of giving you your

brahmin thread and the set of gayatri-mantras.

 

Please let's not confuse the things. Simply being formally

initiated does not make one eligible to be the next acarya

in the line of the disciplic succession, something that we

really are speaking about. Yes, it is needed for the beginners

to go through that purificatory process. But that is not

really upon what the line of the disciplic succesion is based

rather, what to speak of "only" as you apparently claimed to

be the case.

 

 

> > Nobody is objecting the need for the formal initiation.

>

> You have been telling parampara can go on by siksa. Diksa is not a

> necessity.

 

Please. Let me talk for myself.

 

In the life of a practitioner of the bhakti-yoga, the diksa

(a formal initiation) is a necessity.

 

As far as the line of the disciplic succession (parampara),

I am not saying that it "can" go on by siksa. I am saying

that it *does* go on by siksa. Rather than by the formal

initiation. As explained by Krsna in the BG verses 4.1 and

4.2 (that you seem to keep ignoring).

 

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

> > In other words, just see how easily one can be "brainwashed"

 

> for the conditioned souls it is easier to glide down and get misled than

> get enlightened and remember a good advice for the life time, especially

> with the kaliyuga intelligence.

 

I mean, would it possible to leave the discussion simply to

the strength of its philosophical arguments, and not glide

down to this kind of the well known odd habit of beating

the "we_are_the_saviours" drums?

 

As you have come to this point already, then let me say that

for the conditioned soul it is also easier to glide down to

this petty level of "philosophical discussion" as to judge

own understandings as some saving grace, as opposed to perhaps

dangerous and deviant understanding of the other one. I mean,

easier than simply remaining convinced within oneself into the

strength of the own philosophical arguments, thus giving that

minimum of credit to the assembled fellow Vaisnavas to apply

their own ("kali-yuga"?) intelligence and come up the whatever

conclusions/understanding they are for.

 

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 4 Mar 2002, Braja wrote:

> Good points, it can be misleading. Even yesterday I was talking to one

> devotee who has been in ISKCON for 9 years, and they were saying "I've

> decided not to take initiation, because siksa is most important and I have

> Srila Prabhupada". It's a rather grade-school understanding of what siksa

> and diksa mean. I have never seen or heard any mention of Prabhupada telling

> someone they didn't need diksa because we are a 'siksa sampradaya'.

 

Actually, Srila Prabhupada doesn't always distinguish siksa and

diksa, which are in fact usually supplied by one and the same person, "the

bonafide spiritual master." At least this seems to be his intention in

Cc. Adi-lila, 1.35, when he writes: "Generally a spiritual master who

constantly instructs a disciple in spiritual science becomes his initiating

spiritual master later on."

 

MDd