Diksa or Siksa Sampradaya-- Very Important Point for consideration.

[Guest guest]

>

> That you realised this after two days, and umpteen postings on this

> subject If this realisation was with you in the very beginning, there

> would not be so many mails flying around. If you thought this point was

> not worth considering, you would have simply neglected my point, and

> continued with what ever other context you were discussing.

 

I simply did not think about it earlier.

So I expressed what I thought about that what you considered

to be the problem. Obviously, your point did catch my attention

thus I commented on. Otherwise, I wouldn't. Just like that.

 

 

As far as your now really willing to acknowledge this simple

and obvious truth that the disciplic succession does not mean

that one has to be a direct or initiated disciple of an

previous acarya, I don't know what to say more. This is the

actual point that originally was brought up by me.

 

Also, you seem to insist in discussing the meanings of "diksa"

not in term that it was referred to ("a formal initiation")

but in term of "imparting the knowledge", something that

is more or less identical to meaning of "siksa" (receiving

the instruction/knowledge). In _this_ regard, yes, there would

be no point of differentiating.

 

The very verses of Bhagavad-gita that describe the principle

of guru-parampara actually refer not to a formal initiation

(also called "diksa"), but to the reception/following

of the *instructions*. Not really by the the process

of a formal initiation. It is the verses 4.1 and 4.2:

Krsna says:

 

"I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the

sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu,

the father of mankind, and Mnu in turn instructed it to

Iksvaku".

 

"This supreme science was thus received the chain of disciplic

succession, and the saintly kings understood it in that

way."

 

 

What was the question of a formal initiation ("diksa")

there? It was the question of giving/receiving instruction.

It does not even has to be that one got to be formally

initiated in that line of the disciplic succession.

 

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

 

Thus it can be said, in this above regard, without any

fear of some offense to Srila Prabhupada or deviating

from his teachings, that the line of disciplic succession

is rather one of the instruction ("siksa") than a formal

initiation ("diksa") line. A formal initiation may be

there or even may not.

 

 

- mnd

 

>

> Note : I am copying this to 'GD' as the same discussion is going on there.

> Just FYI.

 

And I am subtracting "GD" from this one of mine.

 

..