One can learn even without Diksha. Then why is Guru Diksha so important???

[Guest guest]

The quotes by Sridhara Maharaja clearly refute the claim of those that say simply by following some instructions, one is initiated. It's clearly proved above that it's not the case.

 

 

One needn't be a disciple of a particular person. The important thing is the conclusion of the disciplic succession.

[theist]

"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."-letter to Kirtananda

[Guest guest]

Here we go again ... letters! Sorry, but that letter was addressed to a particular person, not to the whole world. The instruction therefore applies to him.

 

 

"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."-letter to Kirtananda

[Guest guest]

 

Here we go again ... letters! Sorry, but that letter was addressed to a particular person, not to the whole world. The instruction therefore applies to him.

 

Hare Krsna! Jaya Sri Sri Gurudeva and Gauranga!

 

So perhaps we can stop arguing now, as all the above evidence posted in this thread suggests that for some, the formal initiation is necessary for their spiritual progress, and for some who can be inspired by the impressions received during instructions is equivalent.

 

Both are viable, depending on the candidate.

 

The real question to ask is WHICH APPLIES TO YOU?

 

Then when advancement comes you might be able to tell WHICH APPLIES TO OTHERS.

 

Until then anyone who argues standing on one way or the other is quite obviously a rank beginner who should stick to the kiddie pool instead of thrashing around in the deep end.

[Guest guest]

I couldn't agree more with the following words you have written. Very profound.

 

 

Then when advancement comes you might be able to tell WHICH APPLIES TO OTHERS.

 

Until then anyone who argues standing on one way or the other is quite obviously a rank beginner who should stick to the kiddie pool instead of thrashing around in the deep end.

[theist]

 

Here we go again ... letters! Sorry, but that letter was addressed to a particular person, not to the whole world. The instruction therefore applies to him.

 

Don't be foolish. It is not a personal instruction to only one disciple. Srila Prabhupada is giving a general truth about the disciplic succession. I suppose then you do not accept his recorded conversations where he is talking to one two or three disciples at a time. It was only meant for them right. And lectures where only for those in the room. And Maitreya's speaking to Uddhava was only for Uddhava and there is nothing we can learn from that either.

[theist]

 

Both are viable, depending on the candidate.

 

 

I understand what you mean but it should be qualified in one important area. The formal diksa ceremony is NEVER a viable substitute for real diksa which is rebirth into transcendental knowledge.

 

There is no harm in formal diksa as long as one does not mistake it for the real substance itself.

 

Another point is Sridhar Maharaja is speaking about becoming a disciple of a particular person and for that of course the guru must agree to the relationship.

 

But as Srila Prabhupada stated becoming a disciple of a particular person is not necessary. What is necessary is assimilating the disciplic conclusion.

[Guest guest]

Whatever floats your boat.

 

To me Sridhara Maharaja's quote is very clear. If you can't accept it, fine. Let's just agree to disagree and move on without using personal insults.

 

 

Don't be foolish. It is not a personal instruction to only one disciple. Srila Prabhupada is giving a general truth about the disciplic succession. I suppose then you do not accept his recorded conversations where he is talking to one two or three disciples at a time. It was only meant for them right. And lectures where only for those in the room. And Maitreya's speaking to Uddhava was only for Uddhava and there is nothing we can learn from that either.

[Guest guest]

<I>"Srila Sridhar Maharaj told me that diksa is when the Guru accepts you. So unless he formally accepts you as his disciple then it is not initiation. Some kind of relationship may be there. Certainly. But you cannot just say you got diksa from some Vaishnava simply because he said to you "chant Hare Krishna". That is not diksa. Diksa involves being personally accepted as a disciple by the Guru."</i>

 

This necessarily implies a living guru. If Sridhar actually said 'formal' then so be it. The whole world of unaccepted chanters and worshippers be damned.

After all its all a matter of church membership isn't it. The chosen few as it were. Bring on the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons and the Catholic Church with their exclusive and exculding vision of mercy.(if you can call it that).

[Guest guest]

Damned is not the unaccepted chanters but the one who addresses a great Vaisnava by just his first name. Sridhar?

 

 

<I>"Srila Sridhar Maharaj told me that diksa is when the Guru accepts you. So unless he formally accepts you as his disciple then it is not initiation. Some kind of relationship may be there. Certainly. But you cannot just say you got diksa from some Vaishnava simply because he said to you "chant Hare Krishna". That is not diksa. Diksa involves being personally accepted as a disciple by the Guru."</i>

 

This necessarily implies a living guru. If Sridhar actually said 'formal' then so be it. The whole world of unaccepted chanters and worshippers be damned.

After all its all a matter of church membership isn't it. The chosen few as it were. Bring on the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons and the Catholic Church with their exclusive and exculding vision of mercy.(if you can call it that).

[muralidhar_das]

I have the recording (mp3) of this conversation some place. I'll have to dig it out from among the 1500 lectures I have, mostly unindexed.

 

Whether he said formal i don't remember. What he was saying is that being told "chant Hare Krishna" is not necessarily initiation. There are general instructions or statements such as saying "chant Hare Krishna" on the one hand and Diksa on the other. He was very clear in telling me that I had not received diksa, simply because Prabhupada had said to me (personally) that I should chant hare krishna, follow the regs, read his books.

[Guest guest]

It would be great if you could pull up the mp3.

 

I agree with you. Simple reading books does not make one initiated. It is very arrogant to think so. One needs to be qualified and accepted. A murderer can also read, does that mean he will be accepted?

 

This is a foolish idea invented by the book-vadis and ritviks.

 

 

I have the recording (mp3) of this conversation some place. I'll have to dig it out from among the 1500 lectures I have, mostly unindexed.

 

Whether he said formal i don't remember. What he was saying is that being told "chant Hare Krishna" is not necessarily initiation. There are general instructions or statements such as saying "chant Hare Krishna" on the one hand and Diksa on the other. He was very clear in telling me that I had not received diksa, simply because Prabhupada had said to me (personally) that I should chant hare krishna, follow the regs, read his books.

[Guest guest]

<Quote><i>"Damned is not the unaccepted chanters but the one who addresses a great Vaisnava by just his first name. Sridhar?"</i></Quote>

Like Prabhupada? Anyways it doesn't take much. The infraction - police will find some semantic quibble to damn you. That must make their day.

[Guruvani]

Srila Prabhuapda - Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 4.111 purport,

 

Here in this purport Srila Prabhupada cuts through all the smoke and mirrors and explain the real meaning of diksha.

 

 

A spiritual master simply must be conversant in the essence of the śāstra; he must understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Only then can one become a spiritual master. Dīkṣā actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination.

[Guruvani]

If we are going to get all technical about shastric rules, then how about this one.

 

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 4.111 purport,

 

 

 

According to the pañcarātra injunction, only a householder brahmana can initiate. Others cannot.

So, apparently, the Pancharatric rules are not ABSOLUTE.

[Guruvani]

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 15.108 purport,

 

 

 

It is Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam's opinion that the process of Deity worship is not actually necessary, just as the specific prescriptions of the Pañcarātra and other scriptures do not have to be followed. The Bhāgavatam enjoins that even without practicing Deity worship one can achieve the complete success of human life by any of the other devotional processes, such as simply offering oneself at the Lord's feet for His protection.

[Guruvani]

For all the fanatics about formal diksha, I would just like to point out one thing here.

 

 

Hari-bhakti-vilāsa (2.10)

further quotes:

ato guruḿ praṇamyaivaḿ sarva-svaḿ vinivedya ca

gṛhṇīyād vaiṣṇavaḿ mantraḿ dīkṣā-pūrvaḿ vidhānataḥ

 

"'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 Vaiṣṇava initiation from him.'"

so, really unless one has given EVERYTHING - BODY, MIND and INTELLIGENCE to the spiritual master your DIKSHA is not yet complete, so really you haven't even accepted diksha yet.

Let's be real.

The formal diksha gang want the ritual but they don't want to make the sacrifice that is essential in the actual process of diksha.

So, enough of the posing and profiling.

When you have given everything to your guru, then you have STARTED the diksha process.

Sure, diksha is great.

So, get off of the forum and go give your all to your diksha guru and quit being a fraud initiate.

[Guest guest]

So according to what you are saying you yourself, Guruvani, have not received diksa, since it is clear that you are not totally surrendered to your Guru

[cbrahma]

 

So according to what you are saying you yourself, Guruvani, have not received diksa, since it is clear that you are not totally surrendered to your Guru

The way I read it, unless one is totally surrendered one does not have diksa, regardless of formality. The converse, that if one does not have formal diksa , one is not surrendered, is not implied at all.

That is a logical fallacy.

[Guruvani]

 

So according to what you are saying you yourself, Guruvani, have not received diksa, since it is clear that you are not totally surrendered to your Guru

I've tried to make it clear many times that I am not even a Hare Krishna devotee or a disciple of anyone.

 

If you know anything about what I have written on these forums over the years, you will know that I do not describe myself as a Hare Krishna.

 

I am a strict vegetarian though and have been for 35 years.

I am now 53.

[theist]

TRANSLATION CC 15.108

“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 diksha in his Bhakti-sandarbha (283):

divyam jnanam 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.” [...]

 

Process as diksa.

[Guruvani]

 

The way I read it, unless one is totally surrendered one does not have diksa, regardless of formality. The converse, that if one does not have formal diksa , one is not surrendered, is not implied at all.

That is a logical fallacy.

 

I think I agree with you.

But, I don't see it as fallacious.

 

Not having formal diksha is not tantamount with not being surrendered to the acharya and Krishna.

[muralidhar_das]

 

nama vina kali-kale nahi naya dharma

sarva-mnatra-sara nama ei sastra-marma

 

"In the age of Kali, there is no religion other than the chanting of the Holy Names. The Holy Name is the essence of all sacred utterances - this is the conclusion of all the scriptures." (Caitanya-caritamrta, Adi 7.74)

 

We do not have to memorize a large number of different mantras. There are just a few things to pay attention to with this, our essential mantra: you must chant it properly, avoiding offences. But that will not happen simply by carrying a japa-mala around in your hand. Many people carry a mala but are busy gossiping with one another. Our motto is aviksepena satatyam - 'chant constantly, without distraction.' That is why when people ask me, 'Are we to never meditate on Krsna's pastimes? Are we to be bereft of this nectar forever?' I answer, 'Go ahead. Meditate on them. And instruct others to do the same. But the price of that meditation is steadfastness (nistha) in the Holy Name' This is stated in the Bhakti-rasmarta-sindhu (1.4.15-17):

 

Adau sraddha tatah sadhu-sangah - at the stage of sadhu-sanga you take shelter of the spiritual master's lotus feet. Then bhajana-kriya follows -

 

kona bhagya kona jivera sraddha yadi haya

tabe sei jiva sadhu-sanga je karaya

sadhu-sanga haite haya sravana-kirtana

sadhana-bhaktye haya sarvanartha-nivartana

anartha-nivrtti haile bhaktaye nistha haya

nistha haite sravanadye ruci upajaya

ruci haite bhaktye haya asakti pracura

asakti haite cite janme krsne prity-ankura

sei bhava gadha haile dhare prema-nama

sei prema prayojana sravanananda dhama

 

"If, by good fortune, a living entity develops faith (sraddha) in Krsna, then he begins to associate with devotees (sadhu-sanga). From the association of devotees, one begins devotional service by hearing and chanting about Krsna. This is called sadhana-bhakti and through it one becomes free from all unwanted contaminations (anartha-nivrtti). When one is freed from all unwanted contamination, he becomes steadfast in his devotional practices (nistha). When fixed in devotional practice, a taste (ruci) is awakened. After such taste is awakened, a deep attachment (asakti) arises, and from that attachment the seed of love for Krsna grows in the heart. When the ecstatic emotional stage intensifies, it is called love of Godhead. Such love is life's ultimate goal and the reservoir of all pleasure." (Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya 23.9-13)

 

As Puri Maharaj says in the quote above, at the stage of sadhu-sanga you take shelter of the spiritual master's lotus feet.

 

At the stage of sadhu-sangha, you take diksa and begin bhajana-kriya.

 

Diksa happens at the beginning of your spiritual practice. Diksa is not something you achieve only when you are totally pure and liberated. Diksa is for beginners, for people infested with anarthas. Later on, after diksa, you get free from all your bad habits (anartha-nivritti).

[Guruvani]

 

As Puri Maharaj says in the quote above, at the stage of sadhu-sanga you take shelter of the spiritual master's lotus feet.

 

At the stage of sadhu-sangha, you take diksa and begin bhajana-kriya.

 

Diksa happens at the beginning of your spiritual practice. Diksa is not something you achieve only when you are totally pure and liberated. Diksa is for beginners, for people infested with anarthas. Later on, after diksa, you get free from all your bad habits (anartha-nivritti).

 

That is your version.

 

Hari-bhakti-vilasa says that one must give everything to the spiritual master and then take diksha.

 

If you don't give everything to the acharya when receiving diksha, then the diksha will not mean much of anything. One remains just another attached soul, clinging to material things and claiming to be a disciple of a great acharya.

 

It's just another aspect of our tendency to be cheaters.

 

so, better to be honest and sincere like Theist instead of a charlaton initiate like so many of us here on the forum.

 

I respect honest non-initiates over make-believe initiates.

 

sorry about that............

[theist]

 

Diksa happens at the beginning of your spiritual practice. Diksa is not something you achieve only when you are totally pure and liberated. Diksa is for beginners, for people infested with anarthas. Later on, after diksa, you get free from all your bad habits (anartha-nivritti).

 

Muralidhar, I agree on diksa or initiation to be at the begginng in once sense of the word. Initiate referrs to the initial stage of something.

 

But we also see diksa referred to by Jiva Gosvami as a process. The way I see this is that those definitions are not in opposition to each other just different ways of using the word.

 

It can't reasonably be denied that assimilating transcendental knowledge is a process. We heard Srila Prabhupada use the term "gradual process" so many times.

 

So as far as I am concerned diksa can mean initial acceptance of guru by disciple and disciple by guru. But we know the acceptance on the part of the disciple is not very solid from day one so it can also be said that a disciple is in the process of accepting someone as spiritual master heart mind and body. Acceptance has to be total does it not?

 

We are dealing with a word that is obvioused possessed of different meanings according to context. Are there not ceremonies in Hinduism marking the many passages of a childs life and are they not all called diksa?

 

I believe it behooves anyone who seriously wants to understand diksa to seek out the deepist, most esoteric, most essential meaning and try to apply that.