HG Urmila nominated as a diksa guru

[Guest guest]

Jagat is very quick to assign offensive and arrogant qualities to Sridhar Maharaja's comments about the women gurus who took diksha in the predecessor line of Bhaktivinode, but all he does is show his own prejudice and bias.

He has ascribed so many heinous and chauvenisitc overtones to Sridhar Maharaja's statements and taken much liberty to assert such purports to the words of Sridhar Maharaja when in fact he has never been a student of Sridhar Maharaja and has no right or authority to claim to know the inner meaning behind the words of Sridhar Maharaja.

 

The actual students of Sridhar Maharaja have never sensed or felt such intentions in the words of Sridhar Maharaja.

 

Essentially, all Sridhar Maharaja was saying in the statement that Jagat is ascribing so much meaning to was that Bhaktivinode did not strictly inherit all his spirituality through his diksha line. It is a well known fact that Bhaktivinode acquired his most essential devotional character through his siksha line of spiritual masters.

 

Sridhar Maharaja was not insulting or demeaning the devotee women in the diksha line of Jahnavi devi with that statement. He was simply expressing that the Bhaktivinode Thakur he knew was more of a product of his siksha line than his diksha line. He was only presenting the actual fact that not all the women gurus in the line of Vipina Bihari goswami possessed the same level of realization as did Bhaktivinode Thakur.

 

To assert that every woman guru in the line of Jahnavi devi was automatically on the high platform of Bhaktivinode Thakur simply by the strength of diksha is a most unlikely proposition. The idea that realization comes automatically like some magic siddha-pranali through formal diksha is the concept that Jagat has been promoting for many years since he rejected Srila Prabhupada and took initiation from Lalita Prasad. He is trying to tell us that every women guru in the line of Vipina Bihari Goswami was automatically on the same level of Bhaktivinode Thakur simply by the act of receiving formal diksha in the line of Jahnavi devi.

 

I don't think such a proposal is very sound or likely.

His efforts to demean Sridhar Maharaja by ascribing such lowly intentions to his statements is very unbecoming of him and portrays a total lack of insight into the actual character and purposes of Sridhar Maharaja.

[Jagat]

I did not say anything about heinous. I don't remember what I said, as I can't find it in this very long thread. The point here is that Sridhara Maharaj and everyone else has these exaggerated expectations of what is necessary from a diksha guru. It has to be this exalted self-effulgent dramatic superhero fantastic being who knows everything, sees everything, understands everything, etc., etc.

 

All Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept Rupa, Raghunath, Krishnadas, Narottama, Vishwanath, Baladeva, Jagannath Das and even Gaur Kishor Das. Bhaktivinoda Thakur is more controversial, but I have seen quotations of BVT in books by Kunja Bihari Das Babaji and heard his songs sung at Babaji pangats, etc. The point is that the so-called Bhagavata parampara, or siksha parampara, is accepted by all Vaishnavas, regardless of diksha line.

 

I speculated in my first article on the subject ( that Saraswati Thakur may have originally been intending a unifying principle--as the siksha sampradaya would have been acceptable to all. This might have been treated with favor if he hadn't openly criticized the diksha lines. You can look in <a href=http://www.granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles/showarticle.php?id=15>"Charismatic renewal and institutionalization in the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the Gaudiya Math"), where I show clearly that Saraswati was wanted to marginalize the Pancharatrika system in favor of the Bhagavata "system."

 

As far as I can see, Pancharatrika diksha is primarily about connection. The original charisma existed in the avatar generation, and those who descended from Mahaprabhu's associates were considered to have inherited that charisma. Of course, with our modern democratic vision we don't believe in inherited charisma any more, but back then they did. Nowadays, in a society like Iskcon, diksha has reestablished its original function of connecting the disciple to the institution and through it to the founder-acharya.

 

If most of us were aware of existing power structures in the modern West, we would realize that the political critique of heritage can be seen as a successful propaganda exercise rather than a reality--Bush II is the icon of this. Genetic predetermination is the scientific basis that free-willers have to fight against. I have discussed the foundations of the hereditary tradition to some extent in Charismatic renewal article.

 

May I add here that I have stated many times that I am not anti-Iskcon, anti-GM, anti-Ritvik, or anti-Babaji. I am in favor of the good that any of these groups can accomplish and against any of the evil they may do. I have natural preferences among them, in accordance with the extent to which I feel they are enlightened or progressive. I think that Gaudiya Vaishnavism has a strong and beautiful tradition with a rich literature. At the same time, the evolution of the movement requires that we view it in terms of modern critiques.

 

In fact, in the above article, I followed Shukavak in identifying BVT and BSS as modernizers, within certain limits. Fundamentalism is also a modernizing movement, it just has certain myths about what the true, pristine past was really like. Fundamentalism wants to return to fundamentals, but usually with a modernized organizational structure. This is pretty much what the GM and Iskcon are.

 

For more articles related to the issue, for those who have not read them--<a href=http://www.granthamandira.org/~jagat/articles/showarticle.php?id=14>Bhaktivinoda Thakur’s relationship with Bipin Bihari Goswami</a>.

[Kulapavana]

...this is the thread that never ends

it goes on, and on my friends....

 

so much hair splitting, it's a regular hairball ;-)

 

I say we should all go out there and preach, inspiring other people to practice Krishna Consciousnes. In some way we will all be "gurus" then, and our "guru" debates will improve in both tone and substance... Hare Krishna!

[Jagat]

That is why I say I am for the good that anyone does and against the evil. Much as I have been arguing with the Judaism question, belonging to one or the other of these belief systems does not make one automatically right and just, nor automatically wrong and evil.

 

A person with a perfectly good philosophy may be a complete jerk and a person with completely ridiculous ideas may be a force for moral good. Ideally, we should combine the best of both, but if we have to choose one, it should be moral goodness.

 

As a matter of fact, if we honor our beliefs, we must do it through moral goodness. Why? Because people will not be able to separate the two. Your evil acts will be taken as proof of the wickedness or illusoriness of your ideas.

[theist]

 

 

My wife did not stand up and say "I want to be a guru". The main reason that she was nominated, as far as I know, is because someone is very serious about wanting to be her disciple.

 

 

Personally I am not interested in their domestic life. This is the point that interests me.

 

Why did that someone feel they had to have an offically sanctioned okay from the committee before they could have a guru disciple relationship with Urmila dd? And why does she think she needs the committee's okay before she can accept a disciple?

 

It sounds like that relationship was already being established.

 

[Guest guest]

Hari Bol Jagat -

 

I'm curious if you have read Sri Guru and His Grace. Sridhara Maharaja did not present the idea that the Guru must be a superhero - far from it. If anything you find that he had a very generous spirit and encouraged devotees to take up the position to the best of their ability - he also gave the example of starting a business - those with little capital should keep good company and get help from someone who does have sufficient capital and can help the budding entrepeneur. Overall, I would have to say that lumping Sridhara Maharaja in with those who promote the superhero, bigger than life, idea of Sri Guru is unwarranted and misrepresents him considerably. In fact, Puranjana - who you know is on a slander campaign against basically anyone and everyone, seems to always try to point the finger at Sridhara Maharaja for 'promoting' those with lesser qualifications as bona fide Gurus. So why is that? The answer is because Sridhara Maharaja did not have the superhero idea at all - he told the devotees who came to him from Iskcon that - just like a new recruit puts on the uniform and is immediately recognized as the representative of the government and knows what to do - those who would take the risk of helping others would find the backing from above - provided they are sincere. That doesn't sound like someone promoting the idea of a superhero, larger than life idea of Guru to me.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Jagat]

No, I should have been more careful. You are right, Audarya. I try to be careful, but I may also succumb to hyperbole. I was really speaking to others who take the more radical route.

 

I know very well Sridhar Maharaja's position on guru-tattva and have spoken respectfully of it many times. Indeed, I have had these things pointed out to me by your Guru Maharaj. Sridhar Maharaj's account of why he took up the role of Guru himself is, I think, the most eloquent and humble submission that can be found on the subject.

 

My point about charismatic and institutional roles does come into play, though. It is quite natural that those who are not "prophets" striking out a path of their own based on either a novel understanding of shastra, or through their own personal inspiration rather than previous ecclesiastical qualifications, naturally tend to identify themselves as servants of the institution rather than as being personally qualified.

 

So, (1) Those waiting for the "self-effulgent guru" deny that anyone can act as guru because they haven't reached "prophet" status. But "prophets" are breakers of institutions, or founders of new ones, but never content to accept the status quo. The paradox is that there probably never will be a "self-effulgent guru" in Iskcon, because such a person is a danger to the institution itself. Thus the visceral reactions to Tamal Krishna in the early days and to Gaura Govinda Maharaj later on.

 

(2) The paradox in the Gaudiya Math is that the system was created as a critique of the "institutional" or Pancharatra system. But now it carries on just like a Pancharatra system with initiations and all. But within this, the separate math system creates a certain competitiveness--most clearly manifest in the phenomenon known as "disciple poaching."

 

If Pancharatra diksha was relatively meaningless and the connection to Siddhanta Saraswati was the only thing it was meant to achieve, then what need would there be of reinitiations, especially if the previous guru is in reasonably good standing, even if less spectacularly learned or inspirational?

 

There seem to be many people who are not clear on Saraswati Thakur's concept. If siksha is more important, why is all this reinitiating going on?

 

I can understand if a Babaji or Goswami reinitiates a Gaudiya Math devotee, because they supposedly have a theoretical difference of opinion about the meaning of initiation. The Gaudiya Math also reinitiates disciples of Goswamis and Babajis because they feel that those lineages are hopelessly corrupt. But I don't understand why Govinda Maharaj (for instance) feels it necessary to reinitiate a disciple of Jayapataka Maharaj (for instance), except to say that he does not accept Iskcon or Jayapataka as bonafide representatives of Siddhanta Saraswati's line. But if teaching is the essential element, then what need is there?

 

I don't know what Iskcon's policy is on the question, but I get the impression that if someone wants to defect from one camp to another, initiation is the political tool used to claim him. Initiation identifies someone as "my" disciple.

 

In short, the use of Pancharatrika diksha as a tool for institutionalization is rampant throughout the Gaudiya Math and Iskcon, even though Srila Prabhupada Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati spoke against this.

 

Ritviks have made a critique of the current GM and Iskcon position, but fail to recognize the paradox in their own.

 

========

 

I can actually think of one good scriptural reason for reinitiations--if your initiating guru is envious and does not permit association with other siksha gurus, then he can be rejected, according to Jiva Goswami. This, it would seem to me, applies across the board.

 

========

 

Anyhow, as a member of the "Babaji" camp, I accept the concept of institutional guru, both for Iskcon and the Gaudiya Math. I think it is the genuinely humble position to take. I therefore think that Sridhara Maharaja should also have recognized that women in the line who don't necessarily have any spectacular realizations to add to the previous tradition may also carry out the function of initiator.

 

That's all, Audarya Prabhu. A minor quibble.

[Jagat]

If that was not a clear apology, I make a clear apology to the name of Sridhar Maharaj. I am in no way condoning Puranjan's view of things--at all.

 

As a matter of fact, I find the decentralized vision of Guru Tattva that Sridhar Maharaj taught perhaps the most natural and organic system. I can't understand why Govinda Maharaj does not seem to have adopted a similar liberal view of things.

 

At the same time, I am not entirely unsympathetic to other methods of organizing institutional Vaishnavism. Each of them has strengths and weaknesses. The independent entrepreneur system has the advantage of being flexible and innovative. The opposite extreme--the Ritvik system--has the disadvantage of being extremely conservative. Iskcon is somewhere in between. It has strong conservative tendencies, but at the same time, since it has a governing body that has power to make ecclesiastical and doctrinal decisions, it has a built in mechanism for evolution. So there is more potential there than in the Ritvik scheme.

 

The Ritviks have the potential for creating an egalitarian, democratic type of approach. I think that's what they really want, at heart, like the early Protestants who resented Catholic popery. Right now they tend to the fundamentalist point of view, though it is quite possible that the Ritviks ultimately produce the most liberal branch of Vaishnavism of all... Naah, I don't think so.

 

Of course, there are many conservative "braking" mechanisms in the free-market guru system, too.

[Kulapavana]

Jagat: "...it is quite possible that the Ritviks ultimately produce the most liberal branch of Vaishnavism of all... Naah, I don't think so."

 

That was almost funny... most of these guys would make Taliban seem liberal... ;-)

 

 

[raga]

 

Jagat: I don't know what Iskcon's policy is on the question, but I get the impression that if someone wants to defect from one camp to another, initiation is the political tool used to claim him. Initiation identifies someone as "my" disciple.

 

 

 

Relevant quotes from ISKCON Laws (1997):

 

__________________________

 

 

12.3 Additional Codes for determining Spiritual Offenses

 

3. Offense of accepting re-initiation renouncing bona fide guru.

A devotee duly initiated by a bona fide ISKCON initiating spiritual master

who is in good standing who rejects his guru by accepting any form of re-

initiation or subsequent initiation without the permission of the initiating

spiritual master incurs automatic excommunication the right to revoke being

reserved to the initiating spiritual master or the Governing Body Commission.

The so-called "re-initiations" are deemed invalid, null and void. If the initiating

spiritual master concerned has no objection, a Governing Body Commissioner

may grant reprieve by lessening the penalty to dissociation within his zone--if he

feels remedy is possible without endangering the spiritual lives of others in

ISKCON.

4. Offense of collaborating in guru-parampara offenses.

A person guilty of having recommended or encouraged a member or associate

of ISKCON to accept any form of initiation outside of ISKCON or any further

initiation or duplicate initiation from someone other than his bona fide ISKCON

initiating spiritual master shall be corrected with a censure. If the person guilty

is a spiritual authority, he shall incur automatic suspension; and if rectification

is not forthcoming, then additional remedial measures may be adopted, including

dismissal. If a spiritual authority has failed to discourage a member in his care

from accepting re-initiation or renouncing his spiritual master, he shall be

corrected with a suitable remedy.

 

__________________________

 

12.5.3 Devotees who live and work within ISKCON must be initiated in

ISKCON, except one previously initiated by a recognized sampradaya who

afterward wants to join and serve in ISKCON under the approval and direction

of the local GBC.(82)

 

12.5.4. Anyone who was previously initiated in ISKCON who has taken

further initiation outside of it must renounce their non-ISKCON initiation in

order to work again within ISKCON.

 

__________________________

 

16.1.3.1. All Devotee's Initiations From ISKCON Gurus

 

No devotee shall be eligible to become a diksa and/or

siksa guru in ISKCON unless he has received all of his

initiations from ISKCON-approved gurus in good standing.

A devotee initiated by a bona fide Gaudiya Vaisnava guru

before joining ISKCON may be considered as a special case

by the GBC body.

 

__________________________

 

16.2.5. Initiation Only from Approved Gurus

 

Devotees who live or serve in ISKCON may take initiation

only from ISKCON-approved gurus. [see #1.4 above for

approval process]

 

2.5.1. Violators

2.5.1.1. First initiation outside

ISKCON members who, in violation of ISKCON law, take

initiation from gurus who have not been approved to

initiate in ISKCON shall not be permitted to serve

within ISKCON. If the non-approved guru has an

institution or asrama outside ISKCON, then according to

standard etiquette, his disciples should serve within

the institution of their guru and should not serve

within ISKCON. (This rule does not apply to persons who

were already initiated before they became ISKCON

members.)

 

2.5.1.2. Other initiations outside

Anyone initiated in ISKCON who has taken any further

initiation, or reinitiation, from a non-approved guru

must renounce their initiation from the non-approved

guru in order to work within ISKCON. Their ISKCON

spiritual master (or if their spiritual master is

beyond mortal vision, the local GBC) shall decide the

proper procedure for reinstating them in ISKCON,

including the need for taking any further initiation.

 

2.5.2. Prior Initiation by Non-Bona Fide Gurus

Persons who have taken initiation from non-bona fide

gurus before becoming members of ISKCON should follow the

injunction of Srila Jiva Gosvami that such a useless

guru, a family priest acting as guru, should be given up,

and that the proper, bona fide guru should be accepted.

 

__________________________

 

[Guest guest]

"A devotee initiated by a bona fide Gaudiya Vaisnava guru

before joining ISKCON may be considered as a special case

by the GBC body"

 

this gives some hope

 

"ISKCON members who, in violation of ISKCON law, take

initiation from gurus who have not been approved to

initiate in ISKCON shall not be permitted to serve

within ISKCON"

 

this is against any vaishnava etiquette and offensive, and not practical, iskcon does not seem an organization who does not need help

[Guest guest]

My mention of Puranjana was not intended as an insinuation of your support for his views - I only mentioned him because his only complaint against Sridhara Maharaja amounts to 'he accepts someone who isn't self effulgent superhero as Guru'. So I really only mentioned him because it should be clear from his critique that Sridhara Maharaja was most generous in his outlook.

 

I think the whole reinitiation issue raises some very good questions and putting it along side the teaching of diksha and siksha and their relative importance is a good place to start looking at this. I am not aware of all the reasons why a devotee would seek reinitiation, but I would venture to suggest that there are two basic reasons - one being a rejection of the former Guru and a clear indication on the part of the sadhaka that he/she does not acknowledge the validity of the connection - the other being not so much a rejection of the initial Guru, but rather a desire to formalize the substantial connection one has with his/her siksha Guru. In the latter case I think the sadhaka has not rejected outright the connection with their first Guru, or rather the validity of the diksha - but rather they seek to acknowledge in a formal way through the medium of recieving mantras their connection with a Guru who they feel is helping them more.

 

In either case I don't think that many devotees think carefully enough about what they are doing and why they are doing it - and I also don't think that they understand what Jiva Goswami said or what the implications of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta's innovations are. If they did, they would be less likely to get 'reinitiated' but rather be happy with the siksha which is generously watering their bhakti creeper.

 

The problem with institutionalization is that it seeks to control through material means that which is spiritual. The other real problem with the position of Guru is that it is at once one which lends itself to close sastric examination and at the same time it is beyond the purview of critical examination - it is elusive to say the least. Sri Guru is a manifestion of Krsna and just like Krsna he/she cannot be controlled - Guru is independent - Sridhara Maharaja used to say that Sri Guru is an autocrat.

 

Given the above considerations, my own feeling on the matter is that the concept of 'free flow' of faith is the best, coupled with the idea that devotees should be faith makers not faith breakers.

 

I'd like to see the day when all Gaudiya Vaishnavas can serve together regardless of mission or such considerations, but being a realist - I don't think that day will be dawning any time soon - too many people and institutions would have to change too radically for that to happen. Just look at the Iskcon rules that Raga posted to see the obstacle in the way of cooperation of effort. The best that can be hoped for, I'm afraid, is unity in diversity - but even that seems a bit far off....

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Jagat]

Dear Audarya,

 

I have seen and admired your comments on these public forums for several years now and I have yet to find you anything less than a perfect gentleman. I consider you a friend and an ally when it comes to the important stuff. I never for a moment thought that you meant to compare me with Puranjan. It's just that the association is so distasteful that I had to wash myself of it. Even if you said something nasty, I have enough trust for you that I would give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

There are many others for whom I have to work hard to try to maintain equilibrium before the consistently malicious nonsense they speak. (Not meant for anyone here, of course.)

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Devotee: About your personal case, that you are the higher seed present, and you are given authorization to other sannyasis to initiate also in your presence. How can I see this, as your humility and detachment to accept new disciples? How can I see this?

 

Sridhara Maharaja: Following the general custom, and that "something is better than nothing." With this policy. They can give and do according to the necessity. Some sort of light in comparison with darkness is something. In the name of Mahaprabhu let it go. Then, their Lord is there, and He will manage everything. If there is any gap in the process, if we are sincere, He will manage. If we have no black motive of exploitation and are sincere, if any amendment is necessary, He is there and He will back them.

 

Devotee: The diksa may be given by a lower seed, but doesn't your siksa as a siksa-guru bring that seed to a higher plane also?

 

Sridhara Maharaja: If their disciples are not allowed siksa there may be an underlying motive that they are not fit to approach such high thought. With this motive, if the guru checks the disciple's ambition, that won't be bad. But if knowing that "I'm not able to satisfy his enquiry," and by a policy that the guru's prestige may go down the guru checks the disciple him from connecting with the higher source, then that will be offense. Sincerity is the standard of measurement.

 

Devotee: For example, I will be preaching in Brazil, and people who at that time I will be preaching to will approach me to seek for a guru, and I'm trying to be your disciple, and I will try to direct them to you. I ask you, if you can accept these people as disciples, and another person can give them the initiation, but they can be your disciples. Because I trust completely in you, but I do know if the other person can deliver them.

 

Sridhara Maharaja: I don't consider myself able to take responsibility of so many. It is not a pleasure to take responsibility. So I'm unable, I'm unfit to take responsibility of so many.

So, I have spoken to those that are affectionate to me, that I can't have connection with many. Only very special case, if you find, then you may take to me. Otherwise, you do. As much you know, you help them. But always know that you are dealing with the infinite. Not anything that has got limit. As much as you can.

 

The sky is there, the birds are flying, as much as the bird can. He can not finish the sky. So, we are also doing like that, as much as we have got capacity, we shall do that type of duty to others, help others. Save yourself, and save others, as much as you can.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I could not take the time to read this entire thread but I noticed in one post it has been suggested that Sridhara Maharaja only accommodated the desire of certain senior devotees to initiate but really felt that everyone should be brought to him for initiation. Having been there I can attest that this speculation is not what he expressed at the time. During those days Sridhara Maharaja repeatedly said that the local acaryas should initiate and that he would remain in the background to help them. If he would have said otherwise most of us would have been ready and willing to bring everyone to him for initiation as Parvat Maharaja from Brazil says here:

 

Devotee: For example, I will be preaching in Brazil, and people who at that time I will be preaching to will approach me to seek for a guru, and I'm trying to be your disciple, and I will try to direct them to you. I ask you, if you can accept these people as disciples, and another person can give them the initiation, but they can be your disciples. Because I trust completely in you, but I do know if the other person can deliver them.

 

However Sridhara Maharaja expressly said that he did not did want us to bring everyone to him for initiation. He said special persons or those who could not find faith in the local acaryas could be brought to him for initiation otherwise the local acaryas should initiate. We took special persons to mean the highly educated or sophisticated, and his policy as to re-initiation was simply that persons who had lost faith in their guru should have a connection. But he was expressly and overwhelmingly against what he called faith breaking or trying to turn someone against his or her guru. This quote clearly shows Sridhara Maharaja’s mood regarding initiation as well as the fact that he was not ambitious to make disciples.

 

 

Sridhara Maharaja: "I don't consider myself able to take responsibility of so many. It is not a pleasure to take responsibility. So I'm unable, I'm unfit to take responsibility of so many.

So, I have spoken to those that are affectionate to me, that I can't have connection with many. Only very special case, if you find, then you may take to me. Otherwise, you do. As much you know, you help them. But always know that you are dealing with the infinite. Not anything that has got limit. As much as you can.

 

The sky is there, the birds are flying, as much as the bird can. He can not finish the sky. So, we are also doing like that, as much as we have got capacity, we shall do that type of duty to others, help others. Save yourself, and save others, as much as you can."

 

Brahma

[Guest guest]

When asked about appointing gurus Sridhara Maharaja said that the governing board of an institution cannot appoint an unqualified person as guru, but they can as Vaisnavas, recognize a qualified person and support that recognition through some type of legislative arrangement. Ultimatly faith is paramount. If senior Vaisnavas in an institution have faith in someones ability to help others progrees the path of bhakti they can declare their faith in that person through some type of institutional recognition. Thus Sridhara Maharaja saw appointment not as something sinister but as a joint declaration of faith in relation to a governing board or as a declaration of faith by the guru for a particular disciple as was the case in his own appointment of Govinda Maharaja as acharya for his math.

 

 

This goes along with his position that scripture or religion functions at the point where eternity meets time. At that point time exerts an influence on eternity as eternity exerts its influence on time.

 

Brahma