Definition Of Diksha

[suchandra]

 

The discipline Prabhupada laid out is as clear as it ever was. Why pretend there is some mystery that one needs an embodied guru to explain it to you. There may be bone fide gurus in earth bodies now as we speak and their disciples will benefit. But if one is already taking advantage of Prabhupada's books there also is no absolute necessity to seek such a person out. Nor is there any reason to avoid such a person as long as he is consistent with what Prabhupada taught.

 

Srila Prabhupada used casset tapes to impart diksa as in gayatri mantra initiation to his students. let's see if NM's disciple here (and I mean 3 dot) thinks that is bonefide or not. What is NM's opinion about that? Many of us will consider NM's answer to such a question a reflection on his bone fides. No the answer 3 dot? Let's hear it.

How about you Beggar, do you know?

Lately HH Narayana Swami quite openly points out when he considers that his siksa-guru "was wrong".

 

 

<embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="344" width="425">

[krsna]

 

 

Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna,

Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare

Hare Rama, Hare Rama,

Rama Rama, Hare Hare

harer nama harer nama harer namaiva kevalam

kalau nasty eva nasty eva nasty eva gatir anyatha

"Chant the Holy name, chant the Holy name, chant the Holy name. In the Kali yuga, there is no other way, no other way, no other way."

(Brhan-naradiya Purana, 38.97)

 

 

"The chanting Hare Krishna is our main business, that is real initiation. And as you are all following my instruction, in that matter, the initiator is already there."

(Srila Prabhupada Letter to Tamala Krsna, 19 August, 1968)

"Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real initiation. My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination. That is initiation."

(morning walk, Seattle, 02/10/68)

"Sometimes a diksa-guru is not present always. Therefore one can take learning, instruction, from an advanced devotee. That is called the siksa-guru."

(Srila Prabhupada: lecture - Bhagavad-gita 17.1-3, Honolulu, 07/04/73)

"Well initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge... knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing."

(Srila Prabhupada: Press Interview, Chandigarh, 10/16/76)

 

[cbrahma]

A clear example of one 'bona fide' guru (NM ) blaspheming a pure devotee.

O to have diksa now that Kali Yuga is here.

[cbrahma]

 

Srila Prabhupada used casset tapes to impart diksa as in gayatri mantra initiation to his students. let's see if NM's disciple here (and I mean 3 dot) thinks that is bonefide or not. What is NM's opinion about that? Many of us will consider NM's answer to such a question a reflection on his bone fides. No the answer 3 dot? Let's hear it.

 

But Mahak claims that Prabhupada always knew his disciples personally. Well that's not exactly true because in some cases he took the temple president's recommendation when he initiated by ritvik.

[cbrahma]

 

Good points, when Mahak experienced the formality of first initiation he immediately decided to not get second initiation?

 

And the so-called first initiation isn't really diksa according to most of the initiates who post here. Gayatri diksa is the true diksa.

That first one is definitely not necessary since it is a convention Prabhupada himself began.

[theist]

Could noy understand the NM video. Could you please provide a synopsis suchandra?

[cbrahma]

 

Diksa initiation may be discredited as just a formality, but it is not.

 

Formal diska - the fire sacrifice, the public vows - is a formality by definition. It is a ceremony. Diska , real diksa of initiation process is NOT a formality and can occur according to Prabhupada without the formality.

 

 

"The chanting Hare Krishna is our main business, that is real initiation. And as you are all following my instruction, in that matter, the initiator is already there." (Srila Prabhupada Letter to Tamala Krsna, 19 August, 1968)

 

Both the ISKCON and Rtvik ideas of Guru and Initiation are being used by an alarmingly increasing number of devotees to fervently promote the same treacherous myth ... - that one must be initiated, in order to successfully pursue Krishna consciousness -

http://www.vnn.org/editorials/ET0403/ET10-8578.html

 

According to triple dot this is 'twisting'. How many times do I have to quote this before it's admitted? It's black and white - no twisting or equivocation needed. At least I'm quoting the spiritual master.

 

and again

 

 

Since Srila Prabhupada has left our material vision - one must be very cautious in considering taking ritual Initiation from any presently-available guru. If a guru is not an utterly pure devotee of Lord Krishna - as Srila Prabhupada is - there can be devastating spiritual consequences to both the diksa-guru and the initiate.

 

Numerous post-Prabhupada diksa-"gurus" have manifested their inability to handle the spiritual weight of such a role, by devastating "fall-downs" from spiritual life - and even worse consequences.

 

 

[cbrahma]

 

Could noy understand the NM video. Could you please provide a synopsis suchandra?

I know you didn't ask me, but it's about Bhagavad Gita 9 32 by Prabhupada.

 

 

 

<CENTER>Chapter 9. The Most Confidential Knowledge</CENTER>

 

TEXT 32

 

mam hi partha vyapasritya

ye 'pi syuh papa-yonayah

striyo vaisyas tatha sudras

te 'pi yanti param gatim

SYNONYMS

 

mam--unto Me; hi--certainly; partha--O son of Prtha; vyapasritya--particularly taking shelter; ye--anyone; api--also; syuh--becomes; papa-yonayah--born of a lower family; striyah--women; vaisyah--mercantile people; tatha--also; sudrah--lower-class men; te api--even they; yanti--go; param--supreme; gatim--destination.

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

O son of Prtha, those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth--women, vaisyas [merchants], as well as sudras [workers]--can approach the supreme destination.

 

NM is saying Prabhupada's translation is just plain wrong.

This is offense. I've come across this video before and was going to post it, but thought better because I would have all the NM disciples down my throat shouting apharada. Of course in this case it's NM committing the apharada.

[stonehearted]

Narayana Maharaja is actually saying that the editors--not Srila Prabhupada--have included women, as well as vaishyas and shudras, among the lowborn. He says that Srila Prabhupada could never have written such a thing. It's interesting to note that Narayana Maharaja's edition of Bhagavad-gita does exactly the same thing: "O Partha, by taking shelter of Me, even the lowborn, such as women, merchants, sudras, or whoever, are certain to attain the supreme destination." The '68 version of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, however, avoids making "women, vaishyas, and shudras" an explanation of what it means to be low born: "O son of Pritha, anyone who will take shelter in Me, whether a woman, or a merchant, or born in a low family, can yet approach the Supreme Destination."

[cbrahma]

 

Narayana Maharaja is actually saying that the editors--not Srila Prabhupada--have included women, as well as vaishyas and shudras, among the lowborn. He says that Srila Prabhupada could never have written such a thing. It's interesting to note that Narayana Maharaja's edition of Bhagavad-gita does exactly the same thing: "O Partha, by taking shelter of Me, even the lowborn, such as women, merchants, sudras, or whoever, are certain to attain the supreme destination." The '68 version of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, however, avoids making "women, vaishyas, and shudras" an explanation of what it means to be low born: "O son of Pritha, anyone who will take shelter in Me, whether a woman, or a merchant, or born in a low family, can yet approach the Supreme Destination."

The attack is hardly that nuanced. NM says it's by 'Swamiji', not 'Swamiji's editors'. He is challenging the idea that women are less intelligent which is something Prabhupada has said in more than this context. It is not an editorial fabrication. In fact this is not the only time NM and/or his disciples have blasphemed Prabhupada. I have personally been at a lecture by one of his disciples where that kind of disrespect was commonplace, the presumption being made that Prabhupada 'didn't know' that women don't get Gayatri initiation.

[Vedesu]

 

Narayana Maharaja is actually saying that the editors--not Srila Prabhupada--have included women, as well as vaishyas and shudras, among the lowborn. He says that Srila Prabhupada could never have written such a thing. It's interesting to note that Narayana Maharaja's edition of Bhagavad-gita does exactly the same thing: "O Partha, by taking shelter of Me, even the lowborn, such as women, merchants, sudras, or whoever, are certain to attain the supreme destination." The '68 version of Bhagavad-gita As It Is, however, avoids making "women, vaishyas, and shudras" an explanation of what it means to be low born: "O son of Pritha, anyone who will take shelter in Me, whether a woman, or a merchant, or born in a low family, can yet approach the Supreme Destination."

 

I just now checked my hard-bound edition of Srila Narayana Maharaja's Bhagavada Gita, and it says: O Partha, by taking shelter of Me, even the low-born, as well as women, merchants, sudras, or whoever, are certain to attain the supreme destination.

 

I typed it out exactly as it was written, commas and all, from the 1st edition, printed in the year 2000. Do you have a copy, Babhru prabhu? I was just curious as to your claim that "Narayana Maharaja's edition of Bhagavad-gita does exactly the same thing."

[AncientMariner]

"Why pretend there is some mystery that one needs an embodied guru to explain it to you"

 

 

I have never thought that based on many quotes by Prabhupada but there seems to be quite a few people that insist you have to have a living guru explain all this stuff to you or you are bogus etc. It shocked me to see Mahak take that stance as I have always highly respected his knowledge on various subjects even though not always agreeing with him. So I asked him a question on who exactly he thinks people should accept as a living guru and the quandry seems is that most of the living gurus don't seem to think what Prabhuapda said in letters etc. is very meaningful and is not what he really meant etc. and I find that to be pretty strange so I really don't have that much interest in living gurus that say that sort of thing.

[stonehearted]

What I posted was copied and pasted from the pdf version available online. There's no publication information in that file. My hardbound version is with all my other books in California, so I don't have easy access to it right now. I much prefer the translation you posted, especially in light of this controversy. I thought about writing Brajanath about this, but maybe I'll wait until I can see what versions are being distributed now.

 

I know that Tripurari Maharaja's edition is more like the version you posted, and I heard Hridayananda Maharaja on NPR a few years ago explaining this verse in this way.

 

Thanks for pointing this out; I hadn't considered that there may be several versions around.

[cbrahma]

One may infer from the strategic comma placed after 'low born' and the 'as well as' that sudras are not low-born.

[Beggar]

 

One may infer from the strategic comma placed after 'low born' and the 'as well as' that sudras are not low-born.

 

That's because they are not 'low born' either since they are one of the four varnas. They may be lower than vaisyas but they are within varnasrama.

Mleechas, dog-eaters, Barbarian tribes etc are lowborn. Maybe some can quote this post since cbrahma blocks all my posts.

[theist]

 

"Why pretend there is some mystery that one needs an embodied guru to explain it to you"

 

 

I have never thought that based on many quotes by Prabhupada but there seems to be quite a few people that insist you have to have a living guru explain all this stuff to you or you are bogus etc. It shocked me to see Mahak take that stance as I have always highly respected his knowledge on various subjects even though not always agreeing with him. So I asked him a question on who exactly he thinks people should accept as a living guru and the quandry seems is that most of the living gurus don't seem to think what Prabhuapda said in letters etc. is very meaningful and is not what he really meant etc. and I find that to be pretty strange so I really don't have that much interest in living gurus that say that sort of thing.

 

I knew your views on the subject AM and understood your reason for posing the question. My (mis)use of the word 'you' may have caused a misunderstanding coming as it did along with a quote from you. I was using it the general sense of 'you' meaning really anyone. Never had much schoolin' and my misuse of proper wording and grammer has probably long since cause our Babhru to skip my posts.

[theist]

 

Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> Originally Posted by mahak

Diksa initiation may be discredited as just a formality, but it is not.

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

 

Yes this is a true stated, diksa is more than a formality and that is exactly what some of us have been saying. it is an internal experience The internal experience is not dependent upon on external ceremony. The internal experience of receiving transcendental knowledge is dependent solely on the mercy of Caitya guru.

 

This is a simple truth. One has to wonder about the motivation for all the resistence.

[Vedesu]

 

One may infer from the strategic comma placed after 'low born' and the 'as well as' that sudras are not low-born.

 

 

That's because they are not 'low born' either since they are one of the four varnas. They may be lower than vaisyas but they are within varnasrama.

Mleechas, dog-eaters, Barbarian tribes etc are lowborn. Maybe some can quote this post since cbrahma blocks all my posts.

[Beggar]

 

 

Srila Prabhupada used casset tapes to impart diksa as in gayatri mantra initiation to his students. let's see if NM's disciple here (and I mean 3 dot) thinks that is bonefide or not. What is NM's opinion about that? Many of us will consider NM's answer to such a question a reflection on his bone fides. Know the answer 3 dot? Let's hear it.

How about you Beggar, do you know?

Srila Narayana Maharaja doesn't care for the playing of the recorded gayatri mantras in the disciples ear as way of performing his second initiations but he does consider that Srila Prabhupada's sisyas who received the mantra diksa in this way are duly initiated. I was in one temple were the TP was confused and played the tape into the several initiate's left ears instead of the right (the proper ear). At one initiation in another temple the tape broke and the TP opted to say the mantra to the initiates, which was completely unauthorized. That same TP also included a women that he was having an affair with in a second initiation ceremony. He never submitted her name to Srila Prabhupada because he felt guilty about the illicit sex affair which he later confessed after the lady blooped and he was no longer TP. Years later I saw the initiation letter by Srila Prabhupada and her name was not included. I know that Srila Narayana Maharaja has heard such stories because such abuses were plentiful in '70s Iskcon. At one point he was initiating people over the phone. I don't know if he is still doing that but I know that he prefers to initiate both first and second in person.

[cbrahma]

From the purport to that verse in the Bhagavad Gita

 

 

 

PURPORT

 

It is clearly declared here by the Supreme Lord that in devotional service there is no distinction between the lower or higher classes of people. In the material conception of life, there are such divisions, but for a person engaged in transcendental devotional service to the Lord, there are not. Everyone is eligible for the supreme destination. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam it is stated that even the lowest, who are called candalas (dog-eaters), can be elevated by association with a pure devotee. Therefore devotional service and guidance of a pure devotee are so strong that there is no discrimination between the lower and higher classes of men; anyone can take to it. The most simple man taking center of the pure devotee can be purified by proper guidance. According to the different modes of material nature, men are classified in the mode of goodness (brahmanas), the mode of passion (ksatriyas, or administrators), the mixed modes of passion and ignorance (vaisyas, or merchants), and the mode of ignorance (sudras, or workers). Those lower than them are called candalas, and they are born in sinful families. Generally, those who are born in sinful families are not accepted by the higher classes. But the process of devotional service and the pure devotee of the Supreme God are so strong that all the lower classes can attain the highest perfection of life. This is possible only when one takes center of Krsna. One has to take center completely of Krsna. Then one can become much greater than great jnanis and yogis.

 

It can be seen that 'low' is relative. Prabhupada doesn't draw any hard line as to low vs. high. It's all on a continuum. He had said on many occasions,however, that women are less intelligent, a point which NM also contradicts.

[Beggar]

 

The most simple man taking center of the pure devotee can be purified by proper guidance.

???????

 

Vedabase:

 

The most simple man taking shelter of the pure devotee can be purified by proper guidance.

[Kulapavana]

There have been systematic attempts of the Iskcon Vaishnavas influenced by the Judeo-Christian tradition, to strip Vaishnavism of all it's mysticism and unique character, and to reduce it to yet another Christianity-type belief system. The mantras have become 'prayers', the diksa initiation became optional and symbolic 'baptism', the senior Vaishnava gurus became 'priests'. They claim that all you need is the books (which became 'the Bible') of one and only true 'savior', Srila Prabhupada.

 

It is all bogus, however well intentioned.

 

 

<!-- / message -->

[theist]

 

Srila Narayana Maharaja doesn't care for the playing of the recorded gayatri mantras in the disciples ear as way of performing his second initiations but he does consider that Srila Prabhupada's sisyas who received the mantra diksa in this way are duly initiated. I was in one temple were the TP was confused and played the tape into the several initiate's left ears instead of the right (the proper ear). At one initiation in another temple the tape broke and the TP opted to say the mantra to the initiates, which was completely unauthorized. That same TP also included a women that he was having an affair with in a second initiation ceremony. He never submitted her name to Srila Prabhupada because he felt guilty about the illicit sex affair which he later confessed after the lady blooped and he was no longer TP. Years later I saw the initiation letter by Srila Prabhupada and her name was not included. I know that Srila Narayana Maharaja has heard such stories because such abuses were plentiful in '70s Iskcon. At one point he was initiating people over the phone. I don't know if he is still doing that but I know that he prefers to initiate both first and second in person.

 

Prefers or considers it bogus? You seemed to have put a spin on it in NM's favor Beggar. I could be wrong but that is how it seems to me. I had numerous confrontations from NM disciples a few years back on this point and they all quoted NM as saying taped transfer of mantra was bogus and those initiations were not real.

 

I am open to the possibility that they overstated the facts as much as I am to you having understated the facts. I would need some quotes from NM himself to be certain I suppose.

 

Thanks for the response.

[theist]

One more question for Beggar. B.R. Sridhar Maharaja said that the gayatri mantra is effective only as an adjunct to the Holy Name to the point of liberation and may not even be necessary at all.

 

I am sure you know the quote and the book I read it in but I cannot remember and am not 100% confident I am quoting it correctly. Can you help me by providing the full quoteword for word as well as it's source.

 

Thanks bro.

[theist]

 

I know you didn't ask me, but it's about Bhagavad Gita 9 32 by Prabhupada.

 

Thanks cbrahma