uninitiated siksha gurus?

[livingentity]

May I ask what part of Italy are you in? I lived in Vicenza in 1969 - 1971.

 

Forgive me but my Italian has disappeared not having a need to use it in over 30 years.

[yasodanandana]

your italian is not surely bad as my english

 

i live in florence... near the famous Villa Vrindavan

 

but i go also regularly near vicenza at the iskCon temple Prabhupadadesh (extremely friendly and nice)... i am in a bhaktivrksa group and we cook sunday feast once in a month in this temple

[livingentity]

Hare Krsna!

 

By the way, no need to apologize for your english - it is very good!

[Guest guest]

I just wanted to make a few comments on the original post in this thread. First, most of the devotees who I have seen push the "I'm a senior disciple. It is totally inappropriate to chastise or argue with me." issue are the ones who are frustrated because they are not good enough at preaching to convince the junior devotees to listen to them without pulling rank. Maybe if those frustrated seniors spent more time developing some qualities in the mode of goodness and starting preaching by example, the junior devotees would be more inclined to listen to them.

 

Second, 'uninitiated' does not necessarily mean inexperienced. Many devotees just have not been able to find the right guru for them and it might just be that they are approaching with caution and not that they are insincere. There are also many devotees that are aspiring for a guru, but for whatever reason have not officially accepted initiation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Srila Prabhupada wait 10 years before taking initiation from his Guru Maharaja? So if a devotee waits only one year before taking initiation, is he more experienced than someone who has been actively practicing for many years?

 

>Can one be guru if he himself has not been accepted by a >guru of the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya?

 

The Gaudiya Vaisnava sampradaya appreciates the other bonafide sampradayas and their representatives. Why else would the appearance days of Ramanujacarya, etc be on our calendars? Any bonafide guru should be respected, just as any devotee who is senior in real experience and Krsna consciousness should be respected. And since the majority of us can judge only on externals (initiation, etc) and none of us (even the senior initiateds) can tell who is actually senior Krsna consciousness, we should probably just be safe and respect everybody. (Which in the case of forums like this would mean asking questions submissively and responding to the inquiries of others without name-calling and jumping to conclusions.)

 

PS. This is totally unrelated, but awhile back when I read those posts about Swaminarayana and also whenever there is something posted about Muslims on these forums, I noticed that many posters were really disrespectful and it made me be really ashamed to be a Gaudiya Vaisnava. So let's see some Vaisnava etiquette, okay?

 

 

[Guest guest]

hmmmm

[Priitaa]

 

What if you are already a born vaishnava, who knew krishna from birth. Then do they still need initiation? because they already knew krishna and also have various types of Gurus and know about those Gurus from birth.

 

 

Haribol,

 

It is wonderful to have been born into a family that knows Who God is. The requirement to take initiation does not become any lesser, except for those born in Vrndavana. Prabhupada did say those who took birth in Vrndavana do not need to take initiation because Krishna is their guru, but also that it does not apply to anyone else. Taking initiation is more than just being born in a family who teaches you God is Krishna, it is surrendering cent per cent to the pure deovtee spiritual master. It is washing toilets if he asks you to or dressing up clean and first class for a preaching engagement if he asks you to. Its about learning how to live with many others in the ashrama and finding our false ego is bigger than we thought! And its about getting up at 4 A.M., chanting all our 16 rounds before the sun rises, listening to class, etc., and then spending the rest of the day preaching or somehow or other absorbed in Krishna katha. It is about making an official maybe etherical connection to the spiriutal master for all of eternity.

 

I know a devotee who was born in Vrndavana, India. Her name was Sunita. (She has since left her body.) She did not need to take initiation, but for whatever reason, she still did. Maybe because she previously had another guru and wanted to make sure she connected to Prabhupada 100%, tho this is total speculation on my part. But it is one concern I see with many who are Hindu, tho I do respect Hindus. However, in some cases there are other guru's on their altars from other lineages that we are not sure are pure devotees. Let me clarify, I have no problem with other gurus from other lineages, simply they must be qualified and most do not even know how to check for qualification. I know Prabhupada was very strict that we should not worship a guru who did not meet up to the standard and was not a pure devotee.

 

Then there are other shastra read, and too often there is a difference in philosophy between Prabhupada's translations and therefore teachings teacihngs, and those of other 'authors' or even gurus.

 

In any case, these are my understandings of Prabhupada's instruction on this matter - that everyone, with the exception of those born in Vrndavana - need to take spiritual initiation.

 

I hope this helps answer your question.

 

YS,

Prtha dd

[I_love_krishna_]

Thank you /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guest guest]

Letter to: Kirtanananda

--

Los Angeles

25 January, 1969

69-01-25

 

My Dear Kirtanananda,

...Regarding your question about the disciplic succession coming down from Arjuna, it is just like I have got my disciples, so in the future these many disciples may have many branches of disciplic succession. So in one line of disciples we may not see another name coming from a different line. But this does not mean that person whose name does not appear was not in the disciplic succession. Narada was the Spiritual Master of Vyasadeva, and Arjuna was Vyasadeva's disciple, not as initiated disciple but there was some blood relation between them. So there is connection in this way, and it is not possible to list all such relationships in the short description given in Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Another point is that disciplic succession does not mean one has to be directly a disciple of a particular person. The conclusions which we have tried to explain in our Bhagavad-gita As It Is is the same as those conclusions of Arjuna. Arjuna accepted Krishna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and we also accept the same truth under the disciplic succession of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another. This is an axiomatic truth. So there is no difference of opinion of understanding Krishna between ourselves and Arjuna. Another example is that a tree has many branches, and you will find one leaf here and another leaf there. But if you take this leaf and the other leaf and you press them both, you will see that the taste is the same. The taste is the conclusion,* and from the taste you can understand that both leaves are from the same tree....

 

Excerpt from a letter to Kirtananada Jan.25,1969

 

*refer to next post

[Guest guest]

Letter to: Dinesh

--

Tittenhurst

31 October, 1969

69-10-31

 

My Dear Dinesh,

 

...Regarding the disciplic succession coming from Arjuna, disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion. Arjuna was a disciple of Krishna and Brahma was also a disciple of Krishna. Thus there is no disagreement between the conclusions of Brahma and Arjuna. Vyasadeva is in the disciplic succession of Brahma. The teachings to Arjuna was recorded by Vyasadeva verbatim. So according to the axiomatic truth, things equal to one another are equal to each other. We are not exactly directly from Vyasadeva, but our Gurudeva is a representative of Vyasadeva. Because Vyasadeva and Arjuna are of equal status, being students of Krishna, therefore we are in the disciplic succession of Arjuna. Things equal to the same thing are equal to one another.....

 

Your ever well-wisher,

A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami

[gHari]

I think what is actually being said in the last two quotes is that although no one in the lineage from Lord Brahma down to Srila Prabhupada (as given in the "Bhagavad-gita As It Is") was actually initiated by Arjuna, they can all be considered to be part of Arjuna's disciplic succession since the conclusions received from Sri Krsna by Brahma were the same as those received by Arjuna from Lord Krsna. They were both disciples of Sri Krsna, therefore they are in the same disciplic succession (even though no official initiations bond the followers to Arjuna).

 

It would appear that Sri Krsna is the ultimate spiritual master of all sampradayas.

 

gHari

[theist]

The quotes are extremely clear and need no intrepretation.

 

It's a siksa parampara.

[Guest guest]

I have no problem with the last two letters. The reader is not reading my post clearly. In it I stated I have no problem with any lineage, therefore what to speak of an individual, just that Prabhupada was very strict that the guru be qualified.

 

YS,

Prtha dd

[theist]

Yes guru must be qualified. But that's not the point. You titled your post that everyone needs offical intiation. The letters state something different.

 

It's not in question that everyone needs intiation. "You must be born again to enter the Kingdom of God..."

 

What constitues initiation seems to be the issue.

[raga]

Yes, what constitutes "initiation" is indeed a mystery. The Sanskrit word "diksa" is clearly defined in the writings of the six Gosvamis as the aural reception of the diksa-mantra from a physically present guru.

[theist]

Well I have seen these discussions on what constitutes intiation go on endlessly with no conclusion agreed upon.

 

To enter the parampara is clear from Prabhupada's letters above.

 

Some people think that someone in a body that their eyes can see before them carry more potency in their voice then an obviously empowered devotee's words in writing or on tape can carry.

 

I disagree.

[Guest guest]

Interesting discussion, haribol. A truism comes to mind, "a wise man can learn from a fool, a fool can not learn from anyone"

 

Sums it up, we got ears, and we are all dying, and our business is to hear truth. Initiated means surrender to krsna, and siksa means that one is only repeating what he has heard (and realized) from authority (diksa means the same, BTW).

 

Who can be, ya ask. Anyone. Anyone who speaks truth.

 

hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[stonehearted]

theist: Well I have seen these discussions on what constitutes intiation go on endlessly with no conclusion agreed upon.

 

That's true. However, the letters you cite are not the only instructions on initiation given even by Srila Prabhupada. There's a huge body just of his work, and understanding what initiation is and what happens at initiation is not possible just by reading them, or the instructions of the Goswamis. it must be experienced; the candidate must submit completely to the master. The example of how to accept initiation is given by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Himself. He approached a represntative of Madhavendra Puri he felt qualified to give Him what He needed. Moreover, He instructed the same to Sanatana when He explained the progressive process of devotional service. Following that example and those instructions, Srila Prabhupada submitted himself to a representative of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu he found to be worthy of submission and service.

 

The parampara you refer to in the Gita, and the siksa parampara described by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, do not preclude the formal initiation you seem say Srila Prabhupada denigrates. The two things are not mutually exclusive. There's no evidence that Arjuna never accepted formal initiation from; in fact, we know he did. And more to the point, there's no evidence that any of the links in the Bhagavat parampara described by Sarasvati Thakura never accepted formal diksa from anyone. You name him, we know he accepted initation from a representative of the Lord, regardless of who seemed to be the strongest influence on his practice or preaching.

 

t: Some people think that someone in a body that their eyes can see before them carry more potency in their voice then an obviously empowered devotee's words in writing or on tape can carry.

 

That's just not an accurate characterization of what's being said. Someone may take initation from someone outside our line and find Srila Prabhupada's example the most influential in his or her spiritual life. We see such an example in the life of Sadhu Maharaj, who, as the grandson of a king and disciple of another Gaudiya vaishnava sadhu, was told by his guru that he would nmeet Srila Prabhupada in the future and that it would change his life for the better. It did. After eventually taking sannyas from one of Prabhupada's disciples, he now preaches pure devotional service in India and in South and North America.

[theist]

 

The parampara you refer to in the Gita, and the siksa parampara described by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, do not preclude the formal initiation you seem say Srila Prabhupada denigrates.

 

 

I said nothing or implied nothing of the kind. I find you really dishonest in you evaluation of others words and expressions. No where did Prabhupada denigrate anything in this regards. Go build you strawmans all you want but I won't be involved.

 

Good day.

[stonehearted]

I used "denigrate" in the sense of belittle or disparage, not in the sense of defaming. I also qualified that by saying you seemed to say he belittled it, or said it wasn't important. If I have offended you by overstating my case or misrepresenting what you said, I apologize. Please forgive me.

[theist]

All right but I still won't continue this converstaion. How you read Prabhupada's words and hear him either denigrating belittling or defaming offical intiation is beyond me. I never even got a slight whiff of that. Nor did I in anyway suggest the above.

 

What I hear is Prabhupada's usual broadminded vision being expressed.

[stonehearted]

theist: How you read Prabhupada's words and hear him either denigrating belittling or defaming offical intiation is beyond me.

 

Careful--that's not even close to what I said. I said it sounded as though you saw that. Although I intended it in the mildest sense, I've apologized for my error.

[raga]

How come theist is so heated up nowadays?

 

One question for you: Would you be willing to reject the words of the Gosvamis in favor of what you feel Prabhupada says?

 

That being asked, let me ask another one: Do you agree that according to the Gosvamis, diksa is defined as the physically present guru's reciting the diksa-mantra into the ear of the disciple?

[raga]

 

Theist: Well I have seen these discussions on what constitutes intiation go on endlessly with no conclusion agreed upon.

 

 

I am not actually as much concerned over "initiation" as I am over "diksa". The foundational texts of the tradition speak of diksa in no unclear terms. They are written in Sanskrit and Bengali, and the word "diksa" is consistently used with no meanings far apart from transmitting the diksa-mantra.

 

However, the word "initiation" is used in a vast variety of ways, you find many different glosses on it in Prabhupada's works, which seem to suggest a variety of meanings.

 

In my opinion, to debate over the meaning of an English concept is not as relevant as to get to the roots. Rupa Gosvami says (in Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu): "tasmAd guruM prapadyeta kRSNa-dIkSAdi-zIkSAnAm", emphasizing surrender to guru, receiving Krishna-diksa consequent siksa as the foremost aspects in entering the realm of sadhana-bhakti.

 

Now, "initiation" may be a translation of "dIkSA", "saMskAra", "upanAyana" and god knows what else. In other words, there is little point in debating the meaning of "initiation" at all unless you track it down to a precisely defined original concept.

 

Otherwise, it is just about as stupid as debating over the word "orange" -- A says, "Sun is orange". B says, "No, we eat an orange." B thinks A is childish, A thinks B is a lunatic.

 

Even Merriam-Webster gives a dual meaning to "initiation", the first more resembling what we know as "dIkSA", the second "zIkSA".

 

1 a : the act or an instance of initiating b : the process of being initiated c : the rites, ceremonies, ordeals, or instructions with which one is made a member of a sect or society or is invested with a particular function or status

2 : the condition of being initiated into some experience or sphere of activity : knowledgeableness

 

[raga]

 

To enter the parampara is clear from Prabhupada's letters above.

 

 

You cannot just present one or two statements and say it is "clear". You have to examine all the different statements, reconcile apparently opposing views, and then present a synthesis.

 

[raga]

On the seniority issue.

 

 

Ksamabuddhi:

 

There is an ettiquete that is followed in the sampradaya and generally any devotee that becomes a disciple before us is to be considered as senior to us. Because we have no qualifications to know who is advanced or not, the proper ettiquete is to consider than those who became devotees or disciples before us should be considered senior to us. Otherwise we go to judge devotees based upon our own opinion rather than any genuine standard.

 

 

"It is said, vRddhatvaM vayasA vinA: one may be senior without being advanced in age. Even if one is not old, one gains seniority if he is senior in knowledge." (Prabhupada comments on SB 6.7.33, echoing the import of the verse)