Kulapavana

simple test for you:

1. Can one fall from the Brahmajyoti? Yes, certainly.

2. Are there living entities in Brahmajyoti? Yes, lots!

Conclusion: lots of living entities fall from the Brahmajyoti all the time.

Vyasadeva, who compiled the Puranas, has presented slokas about patanam (falldown)...

let's see some quotes!

Show me shastric quotes that say we all came from Vaikuntha millions of years ago. This belief exists only in Iskcon.

Srila Prabhupada - We have also come down from Vaikuntha some millions and millions of years ago." - Lecture on Bhagavad-gita on August 6, 1973 ...

 

There is no support in shastra for that statement

Sleeper-vada:

I am nitya-siddha, you are nitya-siddha, we are all nitya-siddha. Why do I not feel like a nitya-siddha now? because you just don't know you are a nitya-siddha.

Maya-vada:

I am God, you are God, we are all God. Why do I not feel like God now? because you just don't know you are God.

the 'strict kibutz' method of raising children has been tried in Iskcon and it failed miserably on all fronts. People like Sivarama Swami lecturing others how to raise children? what a joke! they were all a total failure in the grihastha asrama and have no clue as to what it takes to have a family. yes, America is brainwashed, but so are many devotees in Iskcon.

Kula could you share a little of what you mean by 'definitions'?

 

In any debate you have to first define the terms you are using. Obviously many people in Iskcon have a different definition of diksa than the one the rest of the Vaishnava world has.

formal diksa is not necessary.

not neccessary for what? and not neccessary for whom?

is Deity worship neccessary? how about following the regs?

and btw. we are not talking about the bare bones requirement to "be saved". we are talking about definitions.

Kulupavana, didn't Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Prabhupada offer asraya/shelter initiation into the maha-mantra, and then later give gayatri-mantra diksha when the disciple was ready.

 

As far as I understand Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada was one of the first to give actual (formalized) diksha into the maha-mantra in our line.

 

You are correct. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta found the people so fallen that he introduced an initiation into the Maha-mantra (hari nama) as the first step on the road to becoming a Vaishnava, by giving people japa beads, kanthi mala, and a spiritual name. By some accounts he gave hari nama initiation to about 20,000 people, usually requesting them to chant 4 rounds of japa daily. He also gave diksa to a very selected group of his disciples, giving them the GV Gayatri mantras and requesting them to chant 64 rounds.

Srila Prabhupada never called the first initiation 'diksa' and his disciples should respect that. He placed a lot of emphasis on the first initiation, and introduced the fire yajna in conjunction with that ceremony. He gave the women the same Gayatri mantras as he gave men, which was different than the GM standard introduced by BST.

These are all good systems, but one should not confuse the hari nama initiation with diksa, or claim that you can get a diksa from a book. That is not what Prabhupada did or said.

It is painfully obvious that the Mahamantra has nothing to do with diksa as you describe it, yet on the general principle that you have cited that mantras are ineffective without diksa, it is a contradiction.

 

I am describing diksa as it is known among all Vaishnava sampradayas.

The statement that 'mantra is ineffective without diksa' is a shastric statement. It means that mantra MUST BE RECEIVED through proper diksa, and not simply taken from a book or heard from an unauthorized source, and the mantra here refers to the Gayatri mantra.

This thread began with a definition of diska with which you differed. So again you beg the question. I was talking about the Mahamantra, because you are quoting 'tradition' that mantras have to be given by diksa to be effective and quite frankly, if the Mahamantra is not part of the equation I have no interest in participating in religious Hinduism.

In a typical Iskconite fashion you make a mish-mash of terms, concepts, and assumptions and then you expect other people to adjust to this confused mess.

Beat it into your head: Maha-mantra has no connection to diksa in any of the Vaishnava traditions. Diksa mantras are the Gayatri mantras.

Without diksa you are essentially an aspiring Vaishnava, and even with diksa you are not automatically a Vaishnava - it is not cheap, but also diksa is not some empty ritual that Prabhupada followed to appease close-minded ritualists. It is a VERY important part of developing Krsna consciousness.

You were running two arguments simultaneously.

1 That Prabhupada always did it, therefore it is necessary.

2 That Hari-bhakti-vilasa speaks of initiation and therefore formal diksa is necessary.

 

Answers (one more time)

1. is not ought

2. begs the question of what initiation means.

 

Now you're talking about a specific Gayatri and I was talking about the MahaMantra.

Try to stay with me.

Look at the title of the thread: it is about DIKSA. Diksa means getting a Vaishnava Gayatri mantra, not Maha-mantra. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta introduced the formal hari-nama initiation with maha-mantra for the first time in GV tradition. That is NOT diksa. diksa is when you receive the smapradaya Gayatri mantra.

Haribhakti Vilasa (1.55) says gRhIta-viSNu-dIkSAko viSNu-pUjA-paro naraH vaiSNavo’bhihito’bhijnair itaro’smAd avaiSNavaH - it is the diksa mantra that is spoken of in this verse, a Gayatri mantra.

Somebody may always do something without considering it absolutely necessary. There are many practices Prabhupad followed that were not absolutely necessary like singing 'Radha Mahava' before class.

It is your logic which is faulty - turning an 'is' into an 'ought'.

Your quote begs the question of the meaning of initiation.

And what precisely is the 'Visnu' mantra?

I gave you a most definitive quote from our shastra, and you still claim it is no argument! "A Vaishnava is someone who has taken initiation in Vishnu mantra and is actively engaged in serving Vishnu. All others are avaishnavas." Why do you claim that what Prabhupada said trumps Hari-bhakti-vilasa? That is anarchy.

Vishnu mantra is a mantra used for diksa initiation in a particular Vaishnava sampradaya. Each sampradaya has a slightly different Gayatri mantra that is given to new disciples. That mantra carries a particular divine knowledge and rasa promoted by that disciplic succession.

I read somewhere that Prabhupada initiated some disciples by tape recording.

If he decided to initiate someone by tape recording than Lord Krsna certainly made sure it was a valid initiation. But that is not a blanket policy or an excuse to claim that you can get diksa by reading a book. Prabhupada did not tell him: "Oh, just read my books and you will be initiated!" No, he sent that disciple a tape with a diksa mantra specifically for his use.

This ridiculous argument touting religious rituals has convinced me of the futility of chanting. I was thinking about taking it up but on further consideration - I think I'll spare myself all the complications and exquisite torture.

So chanting of the Holy Name is now a 'ritual'?? Wow! Looks like your "diksa from books" is really working... Such divya-jnana emanates from your statements....

Wake up and smell the compost: instead of reworking the standard definitions of diksa in our tradition just go back to the basics: sravanam, kirtanam, vishnu smaranam...

Doesn't prove that he considered formal diksa necessary. He was building his society.

 

 

What process? What is it? A widget?

He did it every time (formal initiation), yet he considered it unneccessary??? Strange logic. Besides what is the shastric definition of a Vaishnava?

"Haribhakti Vilasa (1.55) says gRhIta-viSNu-dIkSAko viSNu-pUjA-paro naraH vaiSNavo’bhihito’bhijnair itaro’smAd avaiSNavaH - "A Vaishnava is someone who has taken initiation in Vishnu mantra and is actively engaged in serving Vishnu. All others are avaishnavas."

What Prabhupada said must be viewed in the light of shastra. End of story.

Since the meaning of "di" from diksha is divyam jnanam, would you at least agree that there's spiritual knowledge in those books? And if spiritual knowledge is actually there, wouldn't it also destroy sin, "ksha"? 'Ksha' stands for sankshayam, to dissipate.

so every time you read a book written by a different Vaishnava you get a diksa from him???

the divya-jnana is the diksa MANTRA, and it is the mantra which destroys sin.

Well, it is somewhat shocking that all what you learned from Prabhupada's books makes you conclude, it is, "just reading a book". Reminds of seeing the Holy Dham as a dirty place, the Deitie as a stone and the guru as ordinairy person.

Rather expected to hear from a resident of Prabhupada Village that when opening Prabhupada's books it is like entering Vaikuntha, the eternal spiritual kingdom of Krsna and experiencing the unending transcendental nectar and joy of pure devotional service.

Now this all became "reading a book"?

The fact still is:

As far as I know, NOBODY, in the entire history of the Vedic tradition, have claimed to have received a diksa from anybody just by reading a book.

Yes, for a discriminating reader these books can be a window into the spiritual world, but not diksa.

He did a lot of things - some were religiously unorthodox like giving women brahminical initiation.

You ask: so what that he always performed a formal diksa for his disciples?

Like I said: It means that you must have BOTH for the process to work.

As to Prabhupada giving brahminical initiation to women - that is not so revolutionary. In all Vaishnava traditions initiated women get a mantra, but it is usually not the Savitri Gayatri mantra. Some Arya Samaj chapters even give women the brahminical thread.

I just wasn't aware that bonafide diksa gurus can fall down but I have read of temporary falldowns in Srimad Bhagavatam. Hopefully that is the case with your guru and maybe someday he will rectify himself.

His falldown appears to be temporary and he is quite visibly coming around. However, I have moved on and took siksa from various Vaishnavas in a substantial way. It is important to point out that despite his obvious and real shortcomings my diksa guru is still actively worshipping Krsna and maintaining some level of sadhana. I definitely still consider him a Vaishnava (he even maintains the Deity worship at home).

To jump over all the members of the disciplic succession right to Srila Vyasadeva and using him to explain that an acarya is deceased and gone is rather ambivalent, too extreme and not the way Vaishnavas would explain things.

As far as I know, NOBODY, in the entire history of the Vedic tradition, have claimed to have received a diksa from anybody just by reading a book.

So you consider the guru you got the mantra from to be a proper guru considering that he stole money from Iskcon?

At the time of my diksa initiation (1980) he represented the parampara properly. It is not just my opinion. He was the obedient servant of Sri Guru and our Parampara.

It is my understanding that he apparently qualified it however as a formality even though he went through it with his disciples.

Prabhupada de-emphasized the actual act of diksa to his disciples, because he wanted them to take the inner sense of diksa very seriously. However, BOTH must be there for the process to work.

My understanding of the word diksa is that it means the transfer of spiritual knowledge from the spiritual master to the disciple. Apparently there is some sort of ceremony that is supposed to formalize this but even that apparently doesn't guarantee anything becuase even people that undergo that formal ceremony often give up spiritual life and people even undergo this formal ceremony from gurus that eventually end up giving up spiritual life.

Diksa is a transfer of the Gayatri mantra from a proper (potent) guru to a proper (eager or fertile) disciple. It is the mantra that is the knowledge in the seed form. It has nothing to do with a transfer of book knowledge.

No concoction required. I have Prabhupada saying that the formality is not important.

I get it. Prabhupada gets it. I've quoted him.

Somehow it is a 'formality' that Prabhupada himself NEVER neglected when it came to his disciples.

Yes I definetly think that a neophyte reading Prabhupadas books can get spiritual knowledge from reading Prabhuapdas books. They have that potency even though Prabhupada is not physically here in my opinion.

Of course the books have some potency, and I have seen it. But it is a potency to get you started in the process, not the potency to internally receive the diksa mantras from a departed guru. Nobody got a diksa from Srila Vyasadeva by reading a copy of his Srimad Bhagatam. Neither can anybody get a diksa from Prabhupada by reading his books. That is completely absurd.