Guest guest Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > You now say you agree with the following definition of diksa: > > "Diksa" means "divya jnanam ksapayati", or in English, "explaining > transcendental knowledge". I agree with that. (Ramakanta das) You misunderstood me. For example when Srila Prabhupada said, "The Sanskrit word mantra is a combination of two syllables, man and tra. Man means 'mind', and tra means 'deliverance'. Therefore a mantra is that which delivers you from mental concoction, from hovering on the mental plane." (General Lecture, Seattle, Oct 20, 1968), and I say that agree with that, then I am not saying I agree that the definition of "mantra" is "that which delivers you ...". > So the burden of proof is now on you to demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada > can no longer "explain transcendental knowledge" to disciples on this > planet. I do not have to prove statements that I did not make. With the definition of diksa that you presented your three points are: a) Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole person in ISKCON who imparts knowledge in 1966. b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole person in ISKCON who imparts knowledge. c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the sole person in ISKCON who imparts knowledge. Please provide some evidence for b) and c). > I am happy to allow Srila Prabhupada to also explain all about siksa once > we have finished with your ‘physical presence’ challenge on the issue of > diksa. I presented arguments regarding physical presence which you did not answer. You only said that you will answer them. So it's your turn now. I am waiting for your answer. And before we forget it, please confirm by a quote your statement that the process of diksa may take many lifetimes. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2006 Report Share Posted December 21, 2006 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! With regards the definition of diksa you had said you agreed with: > "Diksa" means "divya jnanam ksapayati", or in English, "explaining > transcendental knowledge". I agree with that. (Ramakanta das) You now say: >”You misunderstood me. For example when Srila Prabhupada said, "The Sanskrit word mantra is a combination of two syllables, man and tra. Man means 'mind', and tra means 'deliverance'. Therefore a mantra is that which delivers you from mental concoction, from hovering on the mental plane." (General Lecture, Seattle, Oct 20, 1968), and I say that agree with that, then I am not saying I agree that the definition of "mantra" is "that which delivers you ...".(Ramakanta das) Look, please can we just stick with the definition of diksa before we lurch onto anything else? The first two letters of the word ‘diksa'- Di mean ‘divya jnana’ which means 'transcendental knowledge'. The second half - ksa- means ‘explain/ing'. This proves I was correct in saying that the following is Srila Prabhupada’s definition of the word diksa: "Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination." (CC Madhya, 4.112, purport) I was completely correct to say that the very definition of the word diksa is to impart transcendental knowledge. Your challenge was defeated. If you no longer accept this definition that you previously agreed with then please present the ‘correct’ definition so that I can mend my ways and join the GBC camp to help fight these pesky ritviks. If you neither prove the definition from the C.c. above is not the definition of the word diksa, nor provide an alternative definition of the word diksa (and it would need to be a definition that proved your original claim about the guru needing to be on the same planet as the disciple to deliver him) then we can stop discussing the issue of physical presence RIGHT NOW since you will have failed to prove it has any impact on point c). Thus far point c) remains intact. All other points shall be dealt with once we agree what diksa is. Best wishes Ys Yadu Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH) <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Yaduraja das <yadurajadas >; Initiations in ISKCON <Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Thursday, December 21, 2006 7:30:00 AM the definition of the word diksa Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > You now say you agree with the following definition of diksa: > > "Diksa" means "divya jnanam ksapayati", or in English, "explaining > transcendental knowledge". I agree with that. (Ramakanta das) You misunderstood me. For example when Srila Prabhupada said, "The Sanskrit word mantra is a combination of two syllables, man and tra. Man means 'mind', and tra means 'deliverance'. Therefore a mantra is that which delivers you from mental concoction, from hovering on the mental plane." (General Lecture, Seattle, Oct 20, 1968), and I say that agree with that, then I am not saying I agree that the definition of "mantra" is "that which delivers you ...". > So the burden of proof is now on you to demonstrate that Srila Prabhupada > can no longer "explain transcendental knowledge" to disciples on this > planet. I do not have to prove statements that I did not make. With the definition of diksa that you presented your three points are: a) Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole person in ISKCON who imparts knowledge in 1966. b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole person in ISKCON who imparts knowledge. c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the sole person in ISKCON who imparts knowledge. Please provide some evidence for b) and c). > I am happy to allow Srila Prabhupada to also explain all about siksa once > we have finished with your ‘physical presence’ challenge on the issue of > diksa. I presented arguments regarding physical presence which you did not answer. You only said that you will answer them. So it's your turn now. I am waiting for your answer. And before we forget it, please confirm by a quote your statement that the process of diksa may take many lifetimes. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2006 Report Share Posted December 22, 2006 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > I was completely correct to say that the very definition of the word diksa > is to impart transcendental knowledge. Okay, let us assume that the very definition of diksa is to impart transcendental knowledge. (BTW. Whether or not I agree with that definition is not relevant). With this definition of diksa your three points are: a) Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole person in ISKCON who imparts transcendental knowledge in 1966. b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole person in ISKCON who imparts transcendental knowledge. c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the sole person in ISKCON who imparts transcendental knowledge. Please provide some evidence for b) and c). And since you seem to perfectly know what diksa is, please explain the difference between siksa-guru and diksa-guru. Both are imparting knowledge. So why is one called siksa-guru and the other one diksa-guru? What is it that changes a siksa-guru into a diksa-guru? > If you neither prove the definition from the C.c. above is not the > definition of the word diksa, nor provide an alternative definition of the > word diksa (and it would need to be a definition that proved your original > claim about the guru needing to be on the same planet as the disciple to > deliver him) then we can stop discussing the issue of physical presence > RIGHT NOW since you will have failed to prove it has any impact on point > c). The discussion about the physical present ends only after you have proven that for all constituents of diksa the physical presence of the diksa-guru is not required. So far we dealt only with the ceremony and with imparting knowledge. Are there other constituents of diksa or initiation? Although I asked you several times to confirm by a quote your statement that the process of diksa may take many lifetimes, you could not confirm it. Therefore you must have misunderstood Srila Prabhupada. So what is the guarantee that you correctly understood other statements by Srila Prabhupada? ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2006 Report Share Posted December 22, 2006 Dear Ramakanta prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! You wrote: <Okay, let us assume that the very definition of diksa is to impart transcendental knowledge. (BTW. Whether or not I agree with that definition is not relevant).> Well it would be irrelevant if I was not debating you and trying to get you to accept point c). The problem is whenever you make a challenge you expect me to take the challenge seriously and then answer it. If I just kept replying.. ¡whether you agree or not with my position, or this proof etc,is irrelevantL then would you be happy? I can do that from now on if you like, just keep saying whether you agree or not with a point or argument is irrelevant. I can say that right now for point c) and we can stop the debate now if you like. Just let me know. If you agree that the very definition of the word diksa is to impart or explain transcendental knowledge, and if you promise never to dispute this point with me again for the rest of this debate, I shall go on to the next point. Best wishes Ys Yadu Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH) <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Initiations in ISKCON <Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Friday, December 22, 2006 6:20:00 AM Re: the definition of the word diksa Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > I was completely correct to say that the very definition of the word diksa > is to impart transcendental knowledge. Okay, let us assume that the very definition of diksa is to impart transcendental knowledge. (BTW. Whether or not I agree with that definition is not relevant). With this definition of diksa your three points are: a) Srila Prabhupada established himself as the sole person in ISKCON who imparts transcendental knowledge in 1966. b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole person in ISKCON who imparts transcendental knowledge. c) Therefore Srila Prabhupada remains the sole person in ISKCON who imparts transcendental knowledge. Please provide some evidence for b) and c). And since you seem to perfectly know what diksa is, please explain the difference between siksa-guru and diksa-guru. Both are imparting knowledge. So why is one called siksa-guru and the other one diksa-guru? What is it that changes a siksa-guru into a diksa-guru? > If you neither prove the definition from the C.c. above is not the > definition of the word diksa, nor provide an alternative definition of the > word diksa (and it would need to be a definition that proved your original > claim about the guru needing to be on the same planet as the disciple to > deliver him) then we can stop discussing the issue of physical presence > RIGHT NOW since you will have failed to prove it has any impact on point > c). The discussion about the physical present ends only after you have proven that for all constituents of diksa the physical presence of the diksa-guru is not required. So far we dealt only with the ceremony and with imparting knowledge. Are there other constituents of diksa or initiation? Although I asked you several times to confirm by a quote your statement that the process of diksa may take many lifetimes, you could not confirm it. Therefore you must have misunderstood Srila Prabhupada. So what is the guarantee that you correctly understood other statements by Srila Prabhupada? ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kulapavana Posted December 22, 2006 Report Share Posted December 22, 2006 Shri Guru Ashraya <HR> USA (VNN) - submitted by Puru das see also VNN story# 1675 - Letter from Pradyumna das 1978 Report To GBC On Guru Issues By Gaura Keshava Dasa INTRODUCTION In 1978 at the Mayapura festival the GBC distributed an official paper, after consulting with the late B.R. Sridhara Maharaja and others. This paper was called "The Process for Carrying Out Srila Prabhupada's Desires for Future Initiations. (A paper prepared by the GBC in consultation with higher authorities... Mayapura, March, 1978.)". This paper is the only official paper on this subject authorized by the GBC since the disappearance of Srila Prabhupada. There have been many GBC resolutions concerning this topic since that time, none of them were accompanied by an officially authorized paper explaining the philosophy behind those resolutions. Although many in our movement profess to understand these subjects well, there has not been a paper since 1978 authorized by the GBC, that the ordinary member of ISKCON can read and explain to others the GBC position on the guru and initiation in ISKCON. There have been many papers by different Pandits, but none of them have been authorized by the GBC. As a result there is large amount of inconclusive literature on these topics. Variously accepted by some members of ISKCON and rejected by others. The GBC should be heavily criticized for this. Their duty is not to legislate and re- legislate every year without explanation. If the GBC do not take up the task of explaining philosophically their resolutions to the rest of the society then they have failed. Although disagreement within ISKCON on minor topics is almost unavoidable, there should be an official view (doctrine) held by the GBC body on all major philosophical issues. For example, not all Catholics agree with the Vatican on all issues, however in the eyes of the Vatican, there are certain ideals which are Catholic doctrine and others that are not. There is a doctrinal committee in the Catholic church to evaluate the merits and demerits of any and all papers, books, views and opinions that are put forward by people in general and the clergy in particular. Every religious organization must explain it's doctrine and ISKCON is no exception. Preamble. Before discussing the questions that have been put before the members of the guru research sub-committee, (see GBC resolutions 1988) some points must be reviewed which are of the utmost importance to the discussion that follows. It is necessary to adopt some type of methodology in dealing with these questions. If common sense, logic and sastra are used in applying the instructions of Srila Prabhupada then there will be no confusion. For example, everyone accepts that Srila Prabhupada wrote in his books general laws meant to stand for all times, places, and circumstances. However this is not necessarily true of his letters or other instructions. They may only be applicable in particular times, places, and circumstances. Therefore his books are greater proof when they seem to conflict with his letters. Similarly, a later instruction in the books or letters often supercedes a earlier one. Instructions of 1977 may supplant those of 1966 or 1976. Another method of philosophical proof in ISKCON is the famous "Prabhupada said..." or "Prabhupada did like this...". We should be very careful when using these statements to be sure they fit exactly the circumstances upon which we superimpose them. His examples and instructions have to be followed, but he is not to be imitated. Co-operation plays a important role in decision making in ISKCON. Co-operation begins at home. Every sincere devotee is ready to put aside his misconceptions, in light of the truth in the sastra. What if our interpretation of Srila Prabhupada's instructions conflicts with the philosophy presented by the previous Acaryas of our sampradaya? The philosophy of parampara which Srila Prabhupada himself taught, explains that the bona-fide spiritual master always preaches the same message as his spiritual master, in an unbroken line of knowledge and instruction, coming all the way from Krsna. If Srila Prabhupada's instructions seem to be different from that of the sastra, then it is either because of his application according to time, place and circumstance, or a misinterpretation of his instructions. When one sees with true perspective, all the instructions of the Acaryas and sastras agree. Therefore it is essential to know the sastra. When time, place or circumstance change we can adjust without watering down Krsna conciousness. Without study of the sastra, Srila Prabhupada's instructions may be misinterpreted or appear unclear. sruti-smrti-puranadi- pa=F1caratra-vidhim vina aikantiki harer bhaktir utpatayaiva kalpate "Devotional service of the Lord that ignores the authorized Vedic literatures like the Upanishads, Puranas and Narada Pa=F1caratra is simply an unnecessary disturbance in society." (Bhakti-rasamrta- sindhu 1.2.101). If we see disturbances in our society it can only be because we are disregarding these authorized sastras. The Hari-bhakti-vilasa as the Authority on Etiquette for Gaudiya Vaisnavas This paper relies heavily on quotes from Hari-bhakti-vilasa. Hari- bhakti-vilasa is the guide book for Gaudiya Vaisnavas. In matters of etiquette, etc. and especially on the subjects of guru and initiation, it stands supreme amongst other literatures. This is the opinion of all Gaudiya Vaisnavas. Hari-bhakti-vilasa is the last word as far as Gaudiya Vaisnava activities (anustana) is concerned. It was commissioned to be written by Lord Caitanya, Himself. It was written by Sanatana and Gopala Bhatta Gosvamis, and it quotes from almost four hundred of the cream of Vedic literatures in support of it's conclusions. Many persons have tried to put forward evidence from other obscure sastras, without first turning to Hari-bhakti- vilasa. However Srila Prabhupada clearly never mentioned these other books. He did however have a lot to say about Hari-bhakti- vilasa. In order to see it's importance more clearly, I have compiled the following quotes from Srila Prabhupada's books concerning the Hari-bhakti-vilasa. SB4.8.54 purport Even in India, this point has been enunciated by Srila Sanatana Gosvami in his book Hari-bhakti-vilasa, which is smriti and is the authorized Vedic guide for Vaisnavas in their daily behavior. Sanatana Gosvami says that as bell metal can turn to gold when mixed with mercury in a chemical process, so, by the bona-fide diksa, or initiation method, anyone can become a Vaisnava. SB8.20.14 purport Vaisnavas are never concerned with ritualistic smarta-brahmanas. Srila Sanatana Gosvami has therefore compiled Hari- bhakti-vilasa to guide the Vaisnavas, who never follow the smarta-viddhi. CCMadya1.35 purport It is Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami's opinion, however, that to follow the Hari-bhakti-vilasa strictly is to actually follow the Vaisnava rituals in perfect order. NOD-05 Thus a Vaisnava automatically becomes a brahmana. This idea is also supported by Sanatana Gosvami in his book Hari-bhakti- vilasa, which is the Vaisnava guide. NOD-06 Srila Rupa Gosvami states that his elder brother (Sanatana Gosvami) has compiled Hari-bhakti-vilasa for the guidance of the Vaisnavas and therein has mentioned many rules and regulations to be followed by the Vaisnavas. TLC-02 This and other rituals are mentioned in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa, the authoritative book of directions. CC Madhya.23.104 TEXT 104 "Establish devotional service to Lord Krsna and Radharani in Vrindavana. You should also compile bhakti scripture and preach the bhakti cult from Vrindavana.'' PURPORT Sanatana Gosvami was enjoined (1) to broadcast the revealed scriptures on devotional service and establish the conclusions of devotional service, (2) to re-establish lost places of pilgrimage like Vrindavana and Radha-kunda, (3) to establish the Vrindavana method of temple worship and install Deities in temples (Sri Sanatana Gosvami established Madana-mohana temple, and Rupa Gosvami established Govindaji temple.), and (4) to enunciate the behavior of a Vaisnava (as Srila Sanatana Gosvami did in Hari- bhakti-vilasa). CC Madhya.25.81 TEXT 81 "Mathura-Vrindavana is My own very dear abode. I want to do many things there to preach Krsna consciousness." PURPORT Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu wanted to accomplish many purposes through the exegetical endeavors of Srila Sanatana Gosvami. First Sanatana Gosvami compiled the book called Brihad-bhagavatamrita to teach people how to become devotees, execute devotional service and attain love of Krsna. Second, he compiled the Hari-bhakti- vilasa, wherein he collected authoritative statements from scriptural injunctions regarding how a Vaisnava should behave. Only by the endeavors of Sri Sanatana Gosvami were all the lost places of pilgrimage in the Vrindavana area excavated. He established Madana-mohana, the first Deity in the Vrindavana area, and by his personal behavior he taught how one should act in the renounced order, completely devoted to the service of the Lord. By his personal example, he taught people how to stay in Vrindavana to execute devotional service. The principal mission of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu was to preach Krsna consciousness. Mathura and Vrindavana are the abodes of Lord Krsna. Therefore these two places are very dear to Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, and He wanted to develop their glories through Sanatana Gosvami. CC Antya4.221 TEXT 221 "He also compiled the Hari-bhakti-vilasa, from which we can understand the standard behavior of a devotee and the full extent of a Vaisnava's duty." PURPORT Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura writes: "The Hari-bhakti- vilasa was originally compiled by Srila Sanatana Gosvami. Later, Gopala Bhatta Gosvami produced a shortened version of it and added the Dig-darshini-tika. In the Hari-bhakti-vilasa there are so many quotations from the satvata scriptures that sometimes it is inquired how the atheistic smartas can refuse to accept them and instead imagine some other opinions. What is recorded in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa strictly follows the Vedic scriptures and is certainly pure, but the attitude of the karmis is always one of giving up the conclusion of pure Vaisnava understanding. Because the karmis are very much attached to the world and material activities, they always try to establish atheistic principles that oppose the understanding of the Vaisnavas. CC Madhya.24.332 TEXT 330 "In your book (Hari-bhakti-vilasa) there should be the characteristics of the bona fide guru and the bona fide disciple. Then, before accepting a spiritual master, one can be assured of the spiritual master's position. Similarly, the spiritual master can also be assured of the disciple's position. The Supreme PersonaIity of Godhead, Krsna, should be described as the worshipable object, and you should consider the bija-mantra for the worship of Krsna, Rama or any other expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead." The Questions. Question 1. If one's initiating guru falls down, must one necessarily take re-initiation? Please present scriptural evidence to support your points. Question 2. If one develops a siksa relationship with a senior devotee in ISKCON, can the relationship be strong enough to obviate the need for formal diksa? (Please answer this with reference both to uninitiated devotees and to devotees whose diksa guru has fallen.) Question 3. Upon whom should the disciple of a fallen guru meditate when chanting the Gayatri mantra directed to the guru? Question 4. Can the disciple of a fallen guru serve as a qualified brahmana to make offerings to Krsna? Question 5. Can the disciple of a fallen guru give diksa? If so, what will be his link to the disciplic succession? Comment. Some considerations about these questions. They seem to be phrased with the idea that re-initiation is bona fide. Let us examine this claim linguistically. The word re-initiation does not occur in sanskrit or even in bengali. Where this term comes from should be stated before using it to describe any philosophical idea. The concept of a word for re-initiation is illogical, for obviously if one is properly initiated then there is no question of re-initiation, and if one is not properly initiated then he is not initiated at all. So where is the question of re-initiation? No, there is only the question of proper and improper initiation. Just as Prabhupada has said that there is no such thing as 'bogus' guru, the word guru implies bona fide, similarly the word initiation implies bona fide. Since the word is being used freely in the GBC and ISKCON in general I will use it. However before using it I would like to define it. Our understanding of this term (re-initiation) necessarily depends upon our definition of initiation or diksha. Let us now examine the meaning of that term (initiation or diksha) in order to come to grips with the meaning of our new term 're-initiation'. The Definition of Initiation and Re-initiation Defining Initiation: Diksha: From Srila Prabhupada's books this term is described as follows: "Srila Jiva Gosvami quotes Hari-bhakti-vilasa to explain diksha in his Bhakti-sandarbha (283)": divyam j=F1anam yato dadyat kuryat papasya sankshayam tasmat diksheti sa prokta desikais tattva-kovidaih "Diksha 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 diksha." Cc. Madhya 15.108 "Diksha actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination." Cc.Madhya 4.111 The word diksha is a compound word in sanskrit and is derived from the two words 'diyate' the verb 'to give' and 'kshiyate' the verb 'to destroy'. The following sloka describes the meanings of these two words in the context of diksha. diyate muktiranaya kshiyate carsya patakam diyate kshiyate tasmat sa dikshetya vidhiyate "Diyate (to give) indicates the giving of liberation, kshiyate (to destroy) indicates the destruction of sins thus these two words come together in the word diksha to mean that process by which sins are destroyed and liberation is given": Pa=F1caratra Aniruddha Samhita 4.4 =46rom the above quotation of Jiva Gosvami's Bhakti sandarbha, which he is quoting from Hari-bhakti-vilasa 2.9, we understand that initiation is the process of giving transcendental knowledge to a person, by the understanding of which, he becomes purified from his previous bad habits and becomes a Vaisnava. The example is also given by Srila Prabhupada of pulling the plug of an electric fan, which causes the fan to slow down and finally stop. This explanation of diksha is very general and Baladeva Vidyabhusana in his Prameya Ratnavali has made a further detailed explanation of the nature of the knowledge given, as well as the other ceremonies to be performed in the giving of diksha. avapta pa=F1ca samskaro labdha dvi vidha bhaktikah sakshat krtya harim tasya dhamni nityam premodate tapah pundram tatha nama mantro yagas ca pa=F1camah amihi pa=F1ca samskarah paramaikanti hetavah tapo'tra tapta cakradi mudra dharanam ucyate tenaiva harinamadi mudra capyupalakshyate harinamaksharair gatram ankayec candanadina sa lokapavano bhutva tasya lokam avapnuyat pundram syad urddhva pundram tac chastre bahuvidham smrtam hari mandira tat pada krtyadi subhavaham namatra gaditam sadbhir hari bhrtyatva bodhakam mantro'shtadasa varnadih sveshta deva vapurmatah salagramadi puja tu yaga sabdena kathyate pramananyeshu drsyani puranadishu sadhubhih "He, who is purified with the five sacraments of initiation and who endeavors on the two paths of bhakti (vaidhi and raganuga), realizes the supreme Lord Hari and rejoices forever in His abode." "The five sacraments of initiation are as follows: 1. Branding the body with the symbols of Lord Vishnu (Conch and Disc) 2. Putting on of Vaishnava tilaka 3. Accepting a name as a servant of the Lord (eg. Krishna dasa) 4. Receiving the mantra of the sampradaya (in this case the Gopal mantra with Kama bija) 5. Surrender and worship of the supreme Lord through a bonafide disciplic succession. These five sacraments of initiation are indeed conducive to one-pointed devotion to the supreme Lord." (A further explanation is given by Baladeva individually of these five.) "The word 'tapa' or 'branding' means the putting on the body (shoulders) of the marks of the disc, etc, with heated metal brands (also called mudras). Besides branding, it includes also the writing of the name of Hari on one's body (with tilaka or sandalpaste)." (N.B. This practice is found in Hari-bhakti-vilasa, and has been mentioned by Srila Prabhupada in Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Madhya Lila 1.35 Purport, while referring to the subject matter of Hari- bhakti-vilasa, quote "There are also descriptions of branding the body with the symbols of Vishnu" It should also be noted that this system of branding although still common today amongst the vaishnavas of the Madhva and Ramanuja sampradayas, has fallen into disuse among Gaudiya vaishnavas who prefer to stamp or draw the symbols on their bodies with tilaka or sandalpaste.) "Let him mark on his body with sandalwood paste the syllables of the name of Lord Hari. Such a person purifies this world (while alive) and (after death) obtains the spiritual world." "The Tilaka mark which is made of straight perpendicular lines on the forehead is called Urddhva Pundra. The scriptures describe several kinds. It may represent the temple of Lord Hari (as a reminder that the body is the temple of the Supersoul). According to others it should be like a footprint of Lord Hari on the forehead of the devotee (showing that one is a servant of God). This tilaka is a most auspicious mark." "The word 'nama' indicates that the guru gives a name which translated should indicate that the devotee is a "servant of God" ( eg. Hari dasa, etc)." "The mantra must be the vaishnava mantra of eighteen syllables (Klim Krishnaya Govindaya Gopijanavallabhaya Svaha). It is considered to be the body of one's ishta devata (Lord Krishna)." (By this process of giving the mantra the guru is giving the disciple, the essence of all knowledge by which he can come to know everything in spiritual life. The mantra is considered non-different from Lord Krishna. The guru thus gives Krishna to the disciple.) "The word 'yaga' means the worship of the supreme Lord in the form of the deity, such as salagrama sila, etc." "The Sadhus (Vaishnava Holy Men) should find the details of these operations in the scriptures (Puranas, Pa=F1caratras, etc.) that are the authorities on these five sacraments." Quoted from Prameya Ratnavali 8. 5-6 by Baladeva Vidyabhusana who himself is quoting from Padma Purana. In the Hari-bhakti-vilasa, second vilasa, Sanatana and Gopala Bhatta Gosvamis give a very detailed explanation of the process of diksha. In this description the whole process is summarized by saying that the only necessary and indeed essential act in initiation, is the speaking or giving of the mantra, (not the Hare Krishna mantra which is referred to correctly as Hari nam and not mantra) Klim Krishnaya Govindaya Gopijanavallabhaya Svaha, by the guru into the disciple's ear (Hari-bhakti-vilasa 2.243-6). athopadesas tattva sare atrapyasaktah kascicced avjambhyarccya sakshatam tad ambhasabhishicyashta varan mulena ke karam nidhayasum japet karne upadese tvayam vidhih candra suryya grahe tirthe siddha kshetre sivalaye mantra matra prakathanam upadesah sa ucyete tatra tatraiva viseshah sri narada pa=F1caratre vitta lobhadvi muktasya svalpa vittasya dehinah samsara bhaya bhitasya vishnu bhaktasya tattvatah agna vajyan vite vijaih salileh kevalais ca va dravya hinasya kurvita vacasanugraham guruh yah samah sarva bhuteshu virago vita matsarah jitendriyah sucir dakshah sarvangavayavanvitah karmana manasa vaca bhite cabhayadah sada sama buddhi padam praptas tatrapi bhagavan mayah pa=F1ca kala paras caiva pa=F1caratrartha vit tatha vishnu tattvam parij=F1aya ekam caneka bhedagam dikshayen medinim sarvam kim punas copasan natam "In the Tantra Sagara it is stated that if one is unable to execute the above mentioned rituals, then he can establish a conchshell full of water by chanting the mantra over it. He should then sprinkle the prospective disciple with that water eight times. Placing his right hand on the head of the disciple, he should then utter the mantra into his right ear." "At the time of solar or lunar eclipses, or in a holy place, or an spiritual place, or in a temple, nothing is required except the giving of the mantra." In the Narada Pa=F1caratra equal importance is given to the long and short methods of initiation. "The mantra may be imparted to the disciple after sprinkling him with water from a pot which has been placed in a Sarvatobhadra Mandala, or with water from a consecrated lotus, or after performing fire sacrifice with grains or even with words alone." Taking the above quotes into consideration, it is seen that initiation or diksha although comprised of five main stages, is essentially the aural transmission of the mantra of the sampradaya (again not to be confused with the Hare Krishna mantra which is technically called Hari nam) to the disciple by the guru. Defining Re-Initiation: The definition of re-initiation, must naturally involve the taking of any or all of the above steps of initiation (as outlined in the sastras), especially the taking of the same mantra again after having taken it before from another guru. I am assuming that this is the meaning of re-initiation. Because the term is not used in the sastra I am explaining it, so the readers will understand what it means. Now with these terms defined we can proceed to the questions that have been posed. Answering The Questions. Question 1. If one's initiating guru falls down, must one necessarily take re-initiation? Please present scriptural evidence to support your points. Answer 1. Firstly, let me answer this question with reference to the books of Srila Prabhupada, and then from Hari-bhakti-vilasa. "A devotee must have only one initiating spiritual master because in the scriptures acceptance of more than one is always forbidden." There is no limit, however, to the number of instructing spiritual masters one may accept. CC.Adi 1.35 Purport This statement of Srila Prabhupada's in the Caitanya Caritamrta should not be ignored. It comes specifically in the section relating to the understanding of guru tattva. Srila Prabhupada has used the word "always" here to be very emphatic about this point. Therefore on the basis of Srila Prabhupada's books one cannot get re- initiated, because in the scriptures it is always forbidden to have more than one initiating guru. One can reject the instructions of his fallen diksa guru but must not reject the diksa and accept another diksa guru which is always forbidden. There is no limit to the number of siksa gurus that anyone may accept, whether his diksa guru is fallen or not. There are many places in other Gaudiya scriptures that explain the situation when the initiating guru goes through some spiritual difficulty. However in all these scriptures only once is the idea of taking initiation into the same mantra again from another guru, mentioned. No one can show apart from this one quote, where the words diksa or vidhi or mantra grahana (initiation, ceremony, or taking the mantra) are mentioned in this connection. They are not. The one quote applicable to re-initiation is given in the fourth chapter of Hari-bhakti-vilasa, (where it is given in a section called Extreme Exceptions) and is also quoted by Jiva Goswami. It is as follows from Narada-Pa=F1caratra: avaishnavopadishtena mantrena nirayam vrajet punas ca vidhina samyag grahayed vaishnavad guroh Hari-bhakti-vilasa 4.144 (Also quoted SB. 11.3.48 Purport) "One who is initiated into a mantra by a non-Vaisnava must go to hell. Therefore he should again be initiated properly, according to the prescribed method, by a Vaisnava guru." Quoted from Hari-bhakti-vilasa 4.144, Bhakti Sandarbha and SB. 11.3.48 Purport. In the purport to this verse Srila Sanatana Gosvami quotes another verse, to be sure that we understand that a Vaisnava guru who somehow deviates, is not considered within this non-Vaisnava category. "marga stho vapy amarga sthah" "Whether he is situated on the path or off the path (of devotional service) the (Vaisnava) guru cannot be given up". Quoted from Sanatana Goswami's purport to Hari-bhakti-vilasa 4.144 This statement seems to be radically opposed to views currently held in ISKCON. This does not entirely solve the problem because ISKCON has to decide for itself who is a Vaisnava guru and who is a non-Vaisnava guru. To understand this quote in context we should read what else is said in Hari-bhakti-vilasa. The definition of non-Vaisnava is given in the very first vilasa as follows: =46rom Hayasirsha Pa=F1caratra jaiminih sugatasca nastiko nagna eva ca kapilascakshapadasca shadete hetuvadinah Quoted from Hari-bhakti-vilasa 1.48 "Followers of Jaimini, Sugata, Atheists, Nagas, followers of the Atheist Kapila and Buddhists are six types of non-Vaisnavas." At the time of giving initiation all of the suspended gurus of ISKCON were accepted and presented as bona fide Vaisnavas gurus; just as many others are accepted and presented as bona fide Vaisnava gurus today. Perhaps they were not very advanced Vaisnavas but they were still Vaisnavas. Therefore it follows (from what we read in Hari- bhakti-vilasa) that the initiation is proper and the following takes place. CC Antya 4-192, P92 diksa kale bhakta kare atma-samarpana sei-kale krsna tare kore atma-sama "At the time of initiation, when a devotee fully surrenders unto the service of the Lord, Krsna accepts him to be as good as Himself." =46rom this statement of the Caitanya Caritamrta it is seen that the devotee becomes transcendentally situated at the time of initiation. Once under the divine nature how will his initiating guru's falldown affect his spiritual status? Many people say that if the initiating guru falls down then the link with Krsna is broken. They of course neglect the very real role that the siksha guru(s) plays in linking us to the guru parampara. From practical experience we see many of the disciples of fallen gurus continuing to chant and advance in devotional service. Why should we conclude that their link has been broken? Obviously, some of them became bewildered, when their diksa guru fell down. They need not be bewildered if they are preached to with the proper understanding. They can at once become fixed by taking shelter of an appropriate siksa guru. Why should they be blamed for the spiritual difficulties of their guru? Many disciples may have left ISKCON. Many of Srila Prabhupada's disciples left too. The fact is that no one leaves the service of the Lord unless he himself decides to. Krsna never disqualifies anyone due to the sins of another. Each individual always has the minute independence to serve Krsna or not. Therefore, as pointed out by many Vaisnavas, including Bhaktivinode Thakura and Nara Hari Sarkara (in their books Jaiva Dharma, Hari Nam Cintamani and Sri Krishna Bhajanamrta) the disciple needs only to find a suitable siksha guru to again guide him on the path of spiritual life. The word diksha is never used by these authors, thus indicating there is no re-initiation. We have the testimony of many living authorities on the subject who also give the same statements. For example: "Narayana Maharaja said that those devotees whose gurus have fallen should be encouraged to take shelter in Prabhupada. And he said those disciples whose spiritual masters have not fallen should have respect for their spiritual masters and approach the disciplic succession through them. It is not that everyone should think, "Well, now I don't trust my spiritual master." Quoted from guru Reform Notebook P56. When Narayana Maharaja was asked "If the initiating guru falls down, is there any need for re-initiation?" he explained " There is no need of re-initiation... The safest path is for Srila Prabhupada to be accepted by those disciples. No one should disturb them, but such persons must recognize the GBC and the principles of Krsna conciousness." There is no doubt that the fallen guru's instructions should not be followed. In this aspect he is no longer guru. But the question remains, should everything that he has given be regarded as bogus? Should his previous good instructions be rejected along with the bad? Should the holy name as well as other bona-fide mantras be rejected? Should the advancement that the disciple has made under him be rejected? Should both guru and disciple and their service to Krsna be totally rejected? Nowhere in the scripture is it stated that the diksa, Hari nam, mantra, service or advancement of an individual should be disregarded in this way. Even if someone is fallen we should respect the service that he performed. If anyone, guru or not has deviated from the path of guru (siksa and diksa), sadhu and sastra he is understood to be a fallen Vaisnava and can at once become rightly situated again on the path of devotional service if he re-engages himself whole-heartedly in the service of the Lord. api cet su-duracaro bhajate mam ananya-bhak sadhur eva sa mantavyah samyag vyavasito hi sah "Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination." Purport:" The words sadhur eva, "he is saintly," are very emphatic. They are a warning to the non-devotees that because of an accidental falldown a devotee should not be derided; he should still be considered saintly even if he has accidentally fallen down. And the word mantavyah is still more emphatic. If one does not follow this rule, and derides a devotee for his accidental falldown, then one is disobeying the order of the Supreme Lord. ... No one should take advantage of this verse and commit nonsense and think that he is still a devotee (this should be the attitude of the fallen person towards himself). If he does not improve his character by devotional service, then it is to be understood (that is by others) that he is not a high devotee." Words in brackets supplied by me. Notice here that Prabhupada does not call him a non-devotee or a non-Vaisnava but says he is not a high devotee. In other words he is still a devotee, not a high one, but a lower or fallen one. Some people may not agree with the above statements from sastra, but examine the alternatives to the above philosophy. Alternative 1. Some people believe that the fallen gurus of ISKCON were not Vaisnavas. These people are divided into two groups. One group believes that the guru in question was never a Vaisnava and the another group believes that he was a Vaisnava but is no longer a Vaisnava. The latter group place stress on whether or not they think he was a Vaisnava at the time of the particular initiation in question. If we say that these people were never Vaisnavas then we come up with several problems. 1. How did they ever become gurus? 2. If they were appointed by Prabhupada then did Prabhupada make a mistake? (a dangerous idea) 3. If they appeared to be Vaisnavas and actually were not then how can we tell in the future who is a Vaisnava and who is not? By taking this first line of reasoning we are completely destroying the credibility of the initiating guru in ISKCON. We may even begin to doubt the vision of Srila Prabhupada if we accept that he appointed such persons to that position. (Needless to say this is not a very good philosophy.) The second line of reasoning would have us believe that a person can become a Vaisnava and then he can become a non-Vaisnava. Assuming that at the time he performed the initiation he was a Vaisnava most people say the disciple is properly initiated. There are several problems in these ideas. 1. How can we tell when a person is a Vaisnava or not? 2. Shouldn't the GBC issue a date after which the above mentioned guru is to be considered bogus? 3. If that date is not issued then the only other indication from the GBC would be the date of his suspension from guruship, in which case all those initiated before that time, have been initiated by a bona fide (GBC approved) guru. Since after suspension he no longer is able to initiate in ISKCON, there would be no problem of re- initiation. 4. Without clear explanation from the GBC, the disciples are left to speculate as to when their guru became bogus and if in fact they are initiated or not. 5. When asking for opinions on this matter these disciples receive conflicting reports from other devotees while the GBC have no philosophical advice to give. These lines of reasoning degrade not only the position of the initiating guru but also that of the GBC. Consider the idea of continuity of devotional service which is set forth in the Nectar of Devotion by Srila Prabhupada and also by Rupa Goswami. Once someone has been initiated by a bonafide spiritual master (i.e. Srila Prabhupada) and has performed devotional service, that service is never lost. These fallen gurus are in fact Vaisnavas, but fallen Vaisnavas. They will have to suffer for their offenses but ultimately none of their advancement in devotional service is lost. Why should we think that their status as Vaisnavas is lost? We should be very careful before we say that these gurus are not Vaisnavas because Vaisnava aparadha is a very dangerous thing. People who live in glass houses should avoid throwing stones. Prabhupada always discouraged his disciples from criticizing fallen devotees. Their status is factually fallen but due to their previous activities they must be understood to be devotees. Would Prabhupada encourage non-Vaisnavas to become gurus in ISKCON? Alternative 2. Some believe that the parampara is like a chain and that the initiating gurus are the only links in that chain. The conclusion here is that when the chain is broken by one of the links then the connection is also broken. At first glance this seems to be a reasonable idea, however it completely ignores the position of the siksa guru in the parampara system. Can the holders of such views give the diksa parampara of ISKCON? It is quite openly understood by all members of the Gaudiya Math and historically aware members of ISKCON, that the guru parampara mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita As It Is, is not a diksa parampara. It derives it's power not from a pure diksa succession, but from the continuity of it's spiritual instructions (siksa). "Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person." Letter to Kirtananda, Jan 69 "Disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion... We are not directly from Vyasadeva, but our Gurudeva is a representative of Vyasadeva." Letter to Dinesh, Oct 69 It is stated in Bhagavad Gita itself, that when the teachings or siksa is lost then the parampara becomes broken. "The Personality of Godhead, Lord Sri Krishna, said: I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Ilshvaku." Notice that the word 'instructed' is used three times but not once is the word initiated used. If initiation were so important wouldn't it be mentioned? In the next verse it is said that the chain was broken and the knowledge needed to be spoken again. Later in the chapter Krishna advises to approach a spiritual master who can impart knowledge to you. The method is described as 'inquiring submissively' and 'rendering service', however initiation is not specifically mentioned. Some who accept the above philosophy, counter by saying that all the gurus in the parampara had initiating spiritual masters. Although they may not be direct disciples, one can fill in the names and dates to find a diksa parampara. There are some major problems with this idea. 1. Fill in the names and dates and see if you can make a diksa parampara. You will find that you cannot. 2. If it is so important in spiritual life to be connected only through the diksa guru then the parampara given to us by Srila Prabhupada, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta, Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana, and Kavi Karnapura is of little or no use in authenticating our spiritual heritage. This is tantamount to saying that the above mentioned Acaryas have mistakenly presented the guru parampara to us. (another dangerous philosophical conclusion) If a pure diksa parampara is so important then why didn't Srila Prabhupada give us one? 3. The followers of this philosophy must conclude that the guru parampara is bogus and therefore ISKCON, the Gaudiya Math and in fact the whole Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya Sampradaya is bogus. Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana presented this very parampara to defeat the holders of such views. 4. Ananta Vasudeva (the Acarya of the Gaudiya math after Srila Bhaktisiddhanta) came to this conclusion to justify his falldown from the position of Acarya, and thus took initiation into a pure diksa parampara. 5. This view of the guru parampara caused many members to leave the Gaudiya Math (and a few to leave ISKCON, Nitai for example, who Srila Prabhupada cursed to never advance because he criticized Srila Bhaktisiddhanta for not coming in a bona fide diksa parampara). All those who left accepted other diksa gurus who were in pure diksa guru paramparas. Something which Srila Prabhupada heavily criticize=03d. =46rom a scriptural point of view, in both Srila Prabhupada's books and the Hari-bhakti-vilasa, the only course left open to the members of ISKCON is outlined in the beginning of this paper. It is summarized here, for further clarification. Summary: 1. All members of ISKCON are Vaisnavas, not Buddhists, Jains, Mayavadis, Hetuvadins, Sankhyites, etc. Therefore initiation by them is Vaisnava initiation which links one, once and for all, with Krsna. The link is never broken by Krsna, just as a contract made with a company remains fixed although representatives of that company may come and go. The only way the connection can be broken is on the side of the disciple, by his inability to follow the siksa or instructions coming to him from Krsna through the mediums of gurus (siksa and diksa), sadhus, and sastra. 2. If the initiating guru is a non-Vaisnava (ie. not an ISKCON guru or a guru from any other bona fide Vaisnava organization), then one must take initiation from a Vaisnava guru. To take re-initiation is a guru aparadha, a Vaisnava aparadha, an offense against the diksa mantras, and the holy name that one has received. The person who does so goes to hell by the verdict of the sastra. bodhah kalushitas tena dauratmyam prakati krtam gurur yena parityaktas tena tyaktah pura harih Brahmavaivarta Purana (Also quoted SB.11.3.48 Purport) "One pollutes his own intelligence and exhibits severe weakness of character when he rejects his own spiritual master. Indeed, such a person has already rejected the Supreme Lord, Hari." 3. The GBC resolutions expressing that a person may or may not take re-initiation are not definitive. Considering the above criterion no one in ISKCON should take re-initiation. Question 2. If one develops a siksa relationship with a senior devotee in ISKCON, can the relationship be strong enough to obviate the need for formal diksa? (Please answer this with reference both to uninitiated devotees and to devotees whose diksa guru has fallen.) Answer 2. "Generally a spiritual master who constantly instructs a disciple in spiritual science becomes his initiating spiritual master later on." CC.Adi1.35 Purport. This is the natural progression of spiritual life. "One should always remember that a person who is reluctant to accept a spiritual master and be initiated is sure to be baffled in his endeavor to go back to Godhead. One who is not properly initiated may present himself as a great devotee, but in fact he is sure to encounter many stumbling blocks on his path of progress toward spiritual realization, with the result that he must continue his term of material existence without relief. Such a helpless person is compared to a ship without a rudder, for such a ship can never reach it's destination." CC Adi 1.35 Purport Concerning a devotee whose diksa guru has fallen, as explained above he is initiated therefore there is no question of getting re- initiated. "A devotee must have only one initiating spiritual master because in the scriptures acceptance of more than one is always forbidden." CC.Adi 1.35 Purport In another lengthy purport Srila Prabhupada again explains that diksa is necessary and he quotes from several sources to prove it. CCMadhya15.TEXT 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." PURPORT Srila Jiva Gosvami explains diksa in his Bhakti-sandarbha (283): divyam jnanam yato dadyat kuryat papasya sanksayam tasmat dikseti sa prokta desikais tattva-kovidaih "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.'' The regulative principles of diksa are explained in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa (Vilasa 2.3,4) and in Bhakti-sandarbha (283). As stated: dvijanam anupetanam svakarmadhyayanadisu yathadhikaro nastiha syac copanayanad anu tathatradikshitanam tu mantra-devarcanadisu nadhikaro'sty atah kuryad atmanam siva-samstutam "Even though born in a brahmana family, one cannot engage in Vedic rituals without being initiated and having a sacred thread. Although born in a brahmana family, one becomes a brahmana after initiation and the sacred thread ceremony. Unless one is initiated as a brahmana, he cannot worship the holy name properly.'' According to the Vaisnava regulative principles, one must be initiated as a brahmana. The Hari-bhakti-vilasa (2.6) quotes the following injunction from the Visnu-yamala: adiksitasya vamoru krtam sarvam nirarthakam pasu-yonim avapnoti diksa-virahito janah "Unless one is initiated by a bona fide spiritual master, all his devotional activities are useless. A person who is not properly initiated can descend again into the animal species. "Hari-bhakti-vilasa (2.10) further quotes: ato gurum pranamyaivam sarva-svam vinivedya ca grhniyad Vaisnavam mantram diksa-purvam vidhanatah "It is the duty of every human being to surrender to a bona fide spiritual master. Giving him everything--body, mind and intelligence--one must take a Vaisnava initiation from him." The Bhakti-sandarbha (298) gives the following quotation from the Tattvasagara: yatha kancanatam yati kasyam rasa-vidhanatah tatha diksa-vidhanena dvijatvam jayate nrnam "By chemical manipulation, bell metal is turned into gold when touched by mercury; similarly, when a person is properly initiated, he can acquire the qualities of a brahmana.'' The Hari-bhakti-vilasa (17.11,12) in discussing the purascarya process, quotes the following verses from Agastya-samhita: puja traikaliki nityam japas tarpanam eva ca homo brahmana-bhuktis ca purascaranam ucyate guror labdhasya mantrasya prasadena yatha-vidhi pa=F1cangopasana-siddhyai puras caitad vidhiyate "In the morning, afternoon and evening, one should worship the Deity, chant the Hare Krsna mantra, offer oblations, perform a fire sacrifice, and feed the brahmanas. These five activities constitute purascarya. To attain full success when taking initiation from the spiritual master, one should first perform these purascarya processes. "The word purah means "before" and carya means "activities.'' Due to the necessity of these activities, we do not immediately initiate disciples in the International Society for Krsna Consciousness. For six months, a candidate for initiation must first attend arati and classes in the sastras, practice the regulative principles and associate with other devotees. When one is actually advanced in the purascarya-vidhi, he is recommended by the local temple president for initiation. It is not that anyone can be suddenly initiated without meeting the requirements. When one is further advanced by chanting the Hare Krsna mantra sixteen rounds daily, following the regulative principles and attending classes, he receives the sacred thread (brahminical recognition) after the second six months. In the Hari- bhakti-vilasa (17.4,5,7) it is stated: vina yena na siddhah syan mantro varsha-shatair api krtena yena labhate sadhako vanchitam phalam purashcara na-sampanno mantro hi phala-dhayakah atah purashkriyam kuryat mantravit siddhi-kanksaya puraskriya hi mantranam pradhanam viryam ucyate virya-hino yatha dehi sarva-karmasu na ksamah purascarana-hino hi tatha mantrah prakirtitah "Without performing the purascarya activities, one cannot become perfect even by chanting this mantra for hundreds of years. However, one who has undergone the purascarya-vidhi process can attain success very easily. If one wishes to perfect his initiation, he must first undergo the purascarya activities. The purascarya process is the life-force by which one is successful in chanting the mantra. Without the life-force, one cannot do anything; similarly, without the life force of purascarya-vidhi, no mantra can be perfected.'' In his Bhakti-sandarbha (283), Srila Jiva Gosvami states: yadyapi shri-bhagavata-mate pancaratradi-vat arcana-margasya avasyakatvam nasti, tad vinapi saranapattyadinam ekatarenapi purushartha-siddher abhihitatvat, tathapi shri-naradadi- vartmanusaradbhih sri-bhagavata saha sambandha-vishesham diksha-vidhanena sri-guru-carana-sampaditam cikirshadbhih kritayam diksayam arcanam avam kriyetaiva. Of similar importance Bhakti-sandarbha (284): yadyapi svarupato nasti, tathapi prayah svabhavato dehadi- sambandhena kardaya-shilanam vikshipta-cittanam jananam tat- tat-sankoci-karanaya shrimad-rishi-prabhritibhir atrarcana-marge kvacit kvacit kacit kacin maryada stapitasti. Similarly in the Ramarcana-candrika it is stated: vinaiva diksam viprendra purascaryam vinaiva hi vinaiva nyasa-vidhina japa-matrena siddhida Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2006 Report Share Posted December 25, 2006 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > Is it then your position that instructing gurus are not authorised to > advance to the stage whereby they can impart transcendental knowledge? No. You claim that b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole person in ISKCON who imparts or explain transcendental knowledge. Please provide some evidence for this claim. And please explain the difference between siksa-guru and diksa-guru. Both are imparting knowledge. So why is one called siksa-guru and the other one diksa-guru? What is it that changes a siksa-guru into a diksa-guru? ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2006 Report Share Posted December 25, 2006 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! <You claim that b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole person in ISKCON who imparts or explain transcendental knowledge.> (Ramakanta das) I never claimed this. You are more than free to look up siksa and diksa on Vedabase yourself, why ask me? Srila Prabhupada can explain it to you better than I ever could. In the meantime point c) remains intact. Best wishes Ys Yadu Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH) <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Initiations in ISKCON <Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Monday, December 25, 2006 6:58:00 AM Re: the definition of the word diksa Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > Is it then your position that instructing gurus are not authorised to > advance to the stage whereby they can impart transcendental knowledge? No. You claim that b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole person in ISKCON who imparts or explain transcendental knowledge. Please provide some evidence for this claim. And please explain the difference between siksa-guru and diksa-guru. Both are imparting knowledge. So why is one called siksa-guru and the other one diksa-guru? What is it that changes a siksa-guru into a diksa-guru? ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > I never claimed this. You already forgot. On Oct 30, 2005 you wrote: "b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON." When we replace "diksa" with its very definition, your claim becomes: "b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole guru in ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge." Please provide some evidence for this claim. > You are more than free to look up siksa and diksa on Vedabase yourself, > why ask me? Srila Prabhupada can explain it to you better than I ever > could. When Srila Prabhupada wrote, "generally the siksa-guru later on becomes the diksa-guru" (SB 4.12.32, purport), he did not explain what it is that changes a siksa-guru into a diksa-guru. Since you seem to know perfectly what "diksa-guru" means, please you explain what it is that changes a siksa-guru into a diksa-guru. > In the meantime point c) remains intact. Your point c) remains a conclusion based only on "we did not see an order". Actually you just refuted your own theory: "It is also Srila Prabhupada who authorised his disciples to act as instructing gurus (siksa)." (Yaduraja, Dec 24, 2006) "On the absolute platform both the siksa and diksa gurus impart transcendental knowledge." (Yaduraja, Dec 13, 2006) "So the very definition of the word diksa is to impart or explain transcendental knowledge, just as Srila Prabhupada confirms in the quote I gave." (Yaduraja, Dec 19, 2006) If Srila Prabhupada authorized his disciples to act as siksa-gurus, and a siksa-guru is also imparting transcendental knowledge, and imparting transcendental knowledge is the very definition of diksa, then Srila Prabhupada authorized his disciples to act as diksa-gurus. BTW. You asked me, "Is it then your position that instructing gurus are not authorised to advance 'to the stage whereby they can impart transcendental knowledge?'", but then you ignored my answer. It is a waste of time to ask questions and then ignore the answers. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 26, 2006 Report Share Posted December 26, 2006 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! <You already forgot. On Oct 30, 2005 you wrote: "b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON." When we replace "diksa" with its very definition, your claim becomes: "b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole guru in ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge." Please provide some evidence for this claim.>(Ramakanta das) On the absolute platform the siksa (defined as ‘to instruct or instructing’) guru also imparts transcendental knowledge, a point you did not dispute in the answer you gave (which I noted carefully). Since our position is that Srila Prabhupada authorised his disciples to come to the liberated platform as siksa gurus you have clearly presented a point b) I never claimed. Although, on the absolute platform, both siksa and diksa gurus impart transcendental knowledge, their dealings are different with the disciple. Did you not know this? That is why there are two names for two different types of guru. If they both had exactly the same modus operandi then why would they be known by different terms? All this is explained by Srila Ptrabhupada on Vedabase. You are meant to be proving that… “the diksa guru must be physically present on the same planet as the disciple to deliver him,” …yet you did not even understand what the definition of the word diksa was, nor apparently do you understand siksa either. That means you have been talking about something you don’t know anything about. Instead of proving your challenge you have proved you do not understand this subject. You also illogically, and without evidence, assume that just because Srila Prabhupada authorised his disciples to become siksa gurus, that he also automatically authorised them to become diksa gurus. If you agree I never claimed: "b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole guru in ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge." For the reasons given above, I shall go to your next point. Best wishes Ys Yadu Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH) <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Initiations in ISKCON <Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Tuesday, December 26, 2006 8:37:00 AM Re: the definition of the word diksa Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > I never claimed this. You already forgot. On Oct 30, 2005 you wrote: "b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON." When we replace "diksa" with its very definition, your claim becomes: "b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole guru in ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge." Please provide some evidence for this claim. > You are more than free to look up siksa and diksa on Vedabase yourself, > why ask me? Srila Prabhupada can explain it to you better than I ever > could. When Srila Prabhupada wrote, "generally the siksa-guru later on becomes the diksa-guru" (SB 4.12.32, purport), he did not explain what it is that changes a siksa-guru into a diksa-guru. Since you seem to know perfectly what "diksa-guru" means, please you explain what it is that changes a siksa-guru into a diksa-guru. > In the meantime point c) remains intact. Your point c) remains a conclusion based only on "we did not see an order". Actually you just refuted your own theory: "It is also Srila Prabhupada who authorised his disciples to act as instructing gurus (siksa)." (Yaduraja, Dec 24, 2006) "On the absolute platform both the siksa and diksa gurus impart transcendental knowledge." (Yaduraja, Dec 13, 2006) "So the very definition of the word diksa is to impart or explain transcendental knowledge, just as Srila Prabhupada confirms in the quote I gave." (Yaduraja, Dec 19, 2006) If Srila Prabhupada authorized his disciples to act as siksa-gurus, and a siksa-guru is also imparting transcendental knowledge, and imparting transcendental knowledge is the very definition of diksa, then Srila Prabhupada authorized his disciples to act as diksa-gurus. BTW. You asked me, "Is it then your position that instructing gurus are not authorised to advance 'to the stage whereby they can impart transcendental knowledge?'", but then you ignored my answer. It is a waste of time to ask questions and then ignore the answers. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > On the absolute platform the siksa guru also imparts transcendental > knowledge. What do you mean by "on the absolute platform"? (Srila Prabhupada did not use this phrase in connection with imparting transcendental knowledge.) Please show us that you know what you are talking about. And please confirm your statement by a quote from Srila Prabhupada. (By asking you to follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction to back up what you are saying I am not saying that your statement is false.) > You are meant to be proving that. > > “the diksa guru must be physically present on the same planet as the > disciple to deliver him,” I do not have to prove statements that I did not make. I wrote: Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet. Otherwise he would not have written that he has to come back from Goloka Vrindaban to deliver those disciples who are not delivered along with him. On the other hand, you did not present one single statement by Srila Prabhupada explicitly saying that for the initiation the physical presence of the diksa guru is not required, as you claim. You started an attempt to prove this claim by enumerating different aspects of initiation and trying to prove that they do not require the physical presence of the diksa guru. But you quickly gave up. > You also illogically, and without evidence, assume that just because Srila > Prabhupada authorised his disciples to become siksa gurus, that he also > automatically authorised them to become diksa gurus. My statement is the logical conclusion directly drawn from your statements. I did not write that this conclusion is correct. If the conclusion is incorrect, then there is something wrong with your statements. If your statements that I quoted are not evidence, then this is not my fault. > If you agree I never claimed: > > "b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole > guru in ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge." > > For the reasons given above, I shall go to your next point. If in your point b) ("Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON") by "diksa guru" you did not mean "the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge", then what did you mean by "diksa guru" in your point b)? Please show us that you know what you are talking about. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2006 Report Share Posted December 27, 2006 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! I thought we had dealt with this unfounded claim of yours: <Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet. Otherwise he would not have written that he has to come back from Goloka Vrindaban to deliver those disciples who are not delivered along with him.> (Ramakanta das) What do you mean by ‘initiate the delivery?’ This phrase can only be referring to the formal ceremony so far as I can see. If so we already agreed he does not need to be physically present at the ceremony. So where does he have to come ‘back’ to, and why? Please tell us the exact geographical location the word ‘back’ refers to without speculating. First you said ‘back’ meant: <Back to the place where his disciple took birth so that he can meet him.> (Ramakanata das Nov 22, 2006 - 06:13 AM) And then you denied you wrote this: <And if you had carefully read my statement you would have noticed that in this statement I did not write that Srila Prabhupada 'must come back to the same planet they are living on'. So this is a straw man argument.> (Ramakanta das Dec 02, 2006 - 05:37 AM) The only location I found was ‘material universe’ in the quote you gave (letter to JPS). Obviously one can remain in the same universe as a disciple without necessarily being on the same planet. Also did you see Srila Prabhupada actually state: “I cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet.” If he did you never presented it. Therefore it must be the product of a tiny brain? Thus you are contradicting your own standard of what constitutes proof yet again. Also in the original quote you keep referring to: "So far as I am concerned, in relationship with my disciples who are so kindly cooperating with me in the matter of my rendering service to my Spiritual Master, for them I am always ready to come back from Goloka Vrindaban, if they are not delivered along with me." (Letter to Brahmananda, 15 Nov, 1969) This is clearly not talking about ‘initiating the delivery’ since Srila Prabhupada is talking about coming back for ‘disciples’. If they are already his disciples then the 'initiation of the delivery' must have already occured. So this quote is not in any way relevant to your claim. Also Srila Prabhupada says: “I am always ready to come back”. He is not saying it is an absolute requirement, but rather something he is ‘ready’ or willing to do. If you agree this previous claim of yours is still unproven I shall go to the next point. It would save a lot of time if, once you have been defeated on a point, you do not then try to slip it into the debate again. Best wishes Ys Yadu P.S. the ‘self realised sage’ imparts knowledge (Bg 4.1.). If you are ‘self realised’ then you are on the absolute platform. Sorry, I thought you would have known this. Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH) <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Initiations in ISKCON <Initiations.in.ISKCON (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Wednesday, December 27, 2006 7:48:00 AM Re: the definition of the word diksa Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > On the absolute platform the siksa guru also imparts transcendental > knowledge. What do you mean by "on the absolute platform"? (Srila Prabhupada did not use this phrase in connection with imparting transcendental knowledge.) Please show us that you know what you are talking about. And please confirm your statement by a quote from Srila Prabhupada. (By asking you to follow Srila Prabhupada's instruction to back up what you are saying I am not saying that your statement is false.) > You are meant to be proving that. > > “the diksa guru must be physically present on the same planet as the > disciple to deliver him,” I do not have to prove statements that I did not make. I wrote: Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet. Otherwise he would not have written that he has to come back from Goloka Vrindaban to deliver those disciples who are not delivered along with him. On the other hand, you did not present one single statement by Srila Prabhupada explicitly saying that for the initiation the physical presence of the diksa guru is not required, as you claim. You started an attempt to prove this claim by enumerating different aspects of initiation and trying to prove that they do not require the physical presence of the diksa guru. But you quickly gave up. > You also illogically, and without evidence, assume that just because Srila > Prabhupada authorised his disciples to become siksa gurus, that he also > automatically authorised them to become diksa gurus. My statement is the logical conclusion directly drawn from your statements. I did not write that this conclusion is correct. If the conclusion is incorrect, then there is something wrong with your statements. If your statements that I quoted are not evidence, then this is not my fault. > If you agree I never claimed: > > "b) Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the sole > guru in ISKCON who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge." > > For the reasons given above, I shall go to your next point. If in your point b) ("Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON") by "diksa guru" you did not mean "the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge", then what did you mean by "diksa guru" in your point b)? Please show us that you know what you are talking about. ys Ramakanta dasa ----------------------- To from this mailing list, send an email to: Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > I thought we had dealt with this unfounded claim of yours: Since we already dealt with this, I don't want to discuss it again now. I just corrected you because you misquoted me. > If you are ‘self realised’ then you are on the absolute platform. So a self-realized siksa-guru is on the absolute platform. And "since on the absolute platform there is in any case no difference between siksa and diksa," (Yaduraja, Nov 30, 2006) a self-realized siksa-guru is also a diksa-guru. So you again refuted your own theory by your own statements, unless you claim that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize his disciples to become self-realized. I asked you: If in your point b) ("Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON") by "diksa guru" you did not mean "the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge", then what did you mean by "diksa guru" in your point b)? So far you did not answer this question and therefore you did not show us that you know what you are talking about. And you could not explain either what it is that changes a siksa-guru into a diksa-guru. So you seem not to be qualified and authorized to talk about diksa (except repeating Srila Prabhupada's statements). ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 2006 Report Share Posted December 28, 2006 Dear Ramakanta Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! With regards your, as yet, unproven claim you say: <Since we already dealt with this, I don't want to discuss it again now. I just corrected you because you misquoted me.> (Ramakanta das) So just to be clear, do you accept that you have not yet proved, with direct evidence, the following claim: “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet without being present (incarnated) on this planet” (Ramakanta das) If you want I can repost all my rebuttals like the Lord Brahma example etc. Obviously if you did prove this already then there is no need for further discussion since you would have already defeated the IRM. You would not need to waste time trying in vain to prove I don’t know what diksa is (which is amusing since it was I who had to show you what the definition of the word was when you challenged it), since you will have already defeated our whole position. If you have not yet proved it then this should be acknowledged before I carry on answering your endless flow of questions. This claim, and my demolition of it, preceded your current peculiarly inept line of argumentation whereby you constantly fail to understand that the siksa and diksa gurus have different dealings (that's why there are TWO words for TWO DIFFERENT types of gurus), even though on the liberated plane they are one. Once you agree you have yet to prove your claim I shall try to help unravel your tangled thinking on siksa and diksa. Ys Yadu Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH) <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Yaduraja das <yadurajadas > Thursday, December 28, 2006 6:50:00 AM Re: the definition of the word diksa Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > I thought we had dealt with this unfounded claim of yours: Since we already dealt with this, I don't want to discuss it again now. I just corrected you because you misquoted me. > If you are ‘self realised’ then you are on the absolute platform. So a self-realized siksa-guru is on the absolute platform. And "since on the absolute platform there is in any case no difference between siksa and diksa," (Yaduraja, Nov 30, 2006) a self-realized siksa-guru is also a diksa-guru. So you again refuted your own theory by your own statements, unless you claim that Srila Prabhupada did not authorize his disciples to become self-realized. I asked you: If in your point b) ("Srila Prabhupada never ordered that he should ever stop being the diksa guru for ISKCON") by "diksa guru" you did not mean "the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge", then what did you mean by "diksa guru" in your point b)? So far you did not answer this question and therefore you did not show us that you know what you are talking about. And you could not explain either what it is that changes a siksa-guru into a diksa-guru. So you seem not to be qualified and authorized to talk about diksa (except repeating Srila Prabhupada's statements). ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2006 Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 Dear Yaduraja Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > So just to be clear, do you accept that you have not yet proved, with > direct evidence, the following claim: > > “Srila Prabhupada cannot initiate the delivery of disciples on this planet > without being present (incarnated) on this planet” (Ramakanta das) I proved it but you did not accept the proof. I do not want to discuss this now. Please focus on the current point (see the subject title given by you). So please tell us what you mean by "diksa guru" in your point b). You said that you do not mean "the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge" (although "diksa" means to "impart or explain transcendental knowledge"). So what do you mean? Please note that I want to know what you mean or understand by "diksa guru". I do not want to know from you what Srila Prabhupada meant by "diksa guru" because I can read that myself in the Vedabase. The meaning given by Srila Prabhupada is "the guru who initiates", and "to initiate" means "to impart or explain transcendental knowledge". So according to Srila Prabhupada "diksa-guru" means "the guru who imparts or explains transcendental knowledge". But in your point b) you mean something else. ys Ramakanta dasa 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.