Jagat

I am sorry that you have got me at a low point in my cycle, HK prabhu. You make many good points. Nevertheless, I will just reiterate two small ones: (1) Interpretation is going on constantly. To say that anyone is "in line" with the true Vedic siddhanta is pretty much a non-sense. I forgot the other one. Just shows where I'm at today. Haribol. Jagat

Just two quick points: (1) What is more important: the here and now or the next world? Both or neither? (2) Krishna adjusts himself to the individual desires of his devotees. I imagine that if a horse devotee wanted Krishna to appear as Pushpadanta, he would.

I just realized that I thought this was my realization and I was just envious that anyone else could have it.

You see, Shiva is O.K. I don't mind his siddhanta. I don't like his punctuation, but when I get past form, most of the substance seems O.K. Of course, devotees tend to be attached the forms of their religion. I personally tend to be attached to them. But I would definitely say that the goal is to commune with God directly and not to be dependent on formal instruction. This is the Puru phenomenon, where cut and paste becomes the substitute for thought and investigation. Anyway, Shiva, you can stop playing with us.. nowsk.

I think this question has been dealt with in Brihad-bhagavatamrita. There Gopakumar receives a mantra from a spiritual master who then disappears without giving him any further instruction other than to chant constantly. Gopakumar goes on chanting and the mantra leads him to various siksha gurus until he reaches Goloka. A person may attain perfection through teaching alone. Diksha gives certain benefits like a confirmed relationship or channel through which the grace of the spiritual master can pass. Generally siksha is sufficient, but diksha confers legitimacy. Therefore those who are not initiated generally do not act as diksha gurus.

Shiva treats siddhanta like punctuation. Why bother with rules? That's a neat new invention, Shiva..two dots. What does it..mean? By the way, it's not that I have anything particularly against mental speculation, but I detest it when mental speculators think they have just discovered sliced bread. That's what irritates me about Nietzche, too, except that Nietzsche at least was a damned fine writer. Aesthetic beauty masks a myriad of evils. Mata Hari knew this. Beauty combined with reason, now there is a definition of "the good."

Yes, finally, what I wanted to say was: The numinous experience of the archetype reminds us of the presence of the Deity, but the real Deity is present in the individual reality behind that “idol.” The spiritual master, like the father (or mother, wife, whatever), will I believe, inevitably disappoint. Because they are human, they fail. The injunction to remember that he or she is divine (sAkSAd hari) is not an appeal to turn a blind eye to their humanity, but a reminder to proceed carefully, to remember that despite the appearance of humanity, divinity is present and lies behind their humanity, as much as humanity lies behind the idolatry. It’s something like a surgeon who has to remember that he is dealing with delicate nerves and blood vessels while engaged in an operation. This is not necessarily always conscious, but it must become the substratum of consciousness. So to summarize this little dialectic: (1) thesis -> idolatry (2) antithesis --> humanity (3) synthesis --> divinity (which then becomes a new idolatry). <small><font color=#dedfdf> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-24-2002).]

I am still not quite sure of your argument. Excuse me for being such a dense student. I don't think I am being particularly negative when I say that Maya enters all relationships. There is a paradox, in that the numinosity of love relationships appears to be a window into the divine on a good day and, and the illusory nature of love's expectations a complete entanglement in hell the next. So I don't believe I am saying anything radical when I say that there is a maturing process that goes on here. Of course, Radha and Krishna are deities that symbolize the coniunctio oppositorum of the psyche internally and also of the divinity present in love externally. I have said that even with changing social expectations, the symbol is rich in potential and not a dead one. (Radha is even a working girl with an equal role in the Vraj village economy--she takes the curds to market to sell.) As far as the comparison is concerned: I am not confusing metaphor for reality. Metaphors, like symbols, are tools for understanding reality. All archetypal relations are fundamentally different, otherwise there would be no need for different archetypes. All would be one. Your comments about external social conditioning are exactly what I am talking about. The West conditions us to accept one kind of craziness and warns us away from the other kind. But both kinds of craziness require similar kinds of maturation processes, i.e., growing out of "archetypal possession" to individuation. However, archetypal possession is an important experience. Therefore, just as marriage is an institutional tool for working through the possession stage to maturity, so is initiation with the spiritual master. This is a somewhat personal theory and may seem to go against the sakshad haritvena idea, but in fact, I think that this is somewhat overblown. Seeing God in everything is certainly a mystical experience on the deepest level. On the most mundane level it is a call to good manners and polite behavior. In special cases, it is a call to special reverence. One should see the deity in one's conjugal partner, and one should see the deity in the spiritual master (and indeed the spiritual master should see the Deity in the disciple, as Siddhanta Saraswati did). This applies to all the relations--parent to child, child to parent, etc. Now Shiva will get frustrated with me when I repeat what he has been saying: yes, the goal is to ultimately hear the voice of God within and become the image and bearer of that voice, but it does not come at the cost of respect. Iconoclasm is the path of the West. But iconoclasm is also an inevitable part of this dialectic. So I think we agree, but I am probably wrong. Jagat<small><font color=#f7f7f7> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-24-2002).]

Dear Hari Krishna Prabhu, Please excuse me for making an error in your name. I try to avoid such stupid mistakes, so please do not be too displeased with me. You signed without your full name, so I did not have a reminder to guide me. Well, I don't think that I am going to get into it. I've had quite my fill of the whole business. A few random thoughts: a tradition is a tradition. If you say a tradition has gone off course, that is one thing, but when you make a change to put it back on course, it is you who are breaking with tradition. A revolution is always against the one in power, even if the one in power is there illegitimately. So I believe my use of terms is correct. As to whether the tradition was correct or not, that is another matter, which as I say, I am in no mood to get into. My article touches on some of these matters by looking into the development of the traditions themselves. Initiation is used as a legitimizing tool. Siksha is rather problematic in this regard. Narayan Maharaj, for example, claims to be Srila Prabhupada's siksha disciple. This does not give him any standing in Iskcon. Similarly, Sridhar Maharaj's siksha disciples like Tripurari Maharaj have no standing in the Chaitanya Saraswata Math, and so on. Exceptions can of course be made, but even then I assume that legitimate diksha from a Gaudiya Math acharya in good standing would be expected. Krishna Kanta, who wrote the Final Order, was considered by many Iskcon people to have no authority to speak because he was uninitiated. It is easy to claim to be a siksha disciple, but it is like claiming to be the crown prince. Show me your DNA. Or claiming to be a doctor--show me your diploma. Even if you can cure your patients, you will still get tossed out on your ear if you have no diploma. Both siksha and diksha disciples interpret their spiritual masters' words; they hear instructions uniquely meant for them, etc. But diksha disciples are in a position to interpret with authority, to give new directions to old institutions. Initiation gives them that legitimacy. Siksha is very arbitrary in this regard. Reformers return to roots, to golden ages of the past. And their followers continue their traditions, but slowly, incrementally, according to time and place, they change and adjust, until some new reformer comes along to change it back. Of course, that can never be done, and they are also innovators of a conservative kind. In the marketplace of ideas, the one backed by the most economic and political power is usually deemed right by popular opinion. Rightness or wrongness has little to do with it. In Gaudiya Vaishnavism that goes by the slogan "Krishna shakti vina nahe tar pravartan." And of course, siksha may be more important than diksha, but surely "bhagavati diksha" is an innovation of some sort? What is your interpretation of that term? Haribol, Jagadananda Das.

Dear Hare Krishna, Please don't mind me recycling a couple of other connected posts that I made on the Dharma Mela in March of this month. I only do so because you have probably not seen them and they have never been posted on this forum before: <hr>Sun, Mar 10 2002 05:44 Jagat Dear Rochan Prabhu, Thank you for taking the time and trouble to read my few words and for attempting to read Joseph O’Connell’s article as well. In one sense, though you may be more emotionally involved than I in analyzing the question of Iskcon’s organizational structure, our discussions are purely academic, for neither of us has much influence in Iskcon. We have differing perspectives and perhaps someday someone will give our opinions some importance, but for the time being, everyone involved seems to think that he or she knows best. So we are all left with our perspective, emotional or detached, but the ones that count are those of the people with the capacity to do something about it. 1. The rationality of the Ritvik position and its adherence to the spirit of the Bhagavata sampradaya I think your comments are very rational and are closest in spirit to the Ritvik solution, which I do not find totally without merit despite my strong reservations. The only difference I see between you and them is that you don’t think new devotees should identify themselves as Prabhupada’s diksha disciples. I don’t think this is a particularly important difference and you may eventually be convinced of the Ritviks’ arguments. After carefully going through Brahmana o Vaishnava (the text of the speech Siddhanta Saraswati gave in Balighai, Medinipur in 1911), I believe that the cornerstone of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati’s reform consisted in devaluating Pancharatrika initiation in favour of a new concept, that of Bhagavati diksha. He explains Bhagavati diksha in Brahmana o Vaishnava as being equivalent to the instruction Hari Das Thakur to the prostitute, where Hari Das says that he has taken diksha (Prabhupada translates “vow”) in the sacrifice of the Holy Name, i.e., of chanting a crore of names in a month). I assume that since there is little to support Saraswati’s ever taking Pancharatrika diksha from Gaura Kishor Das Babaji, and it also seems that the timing is right (Saraswati took initiation from GKDB in 1901 and started his billion name vow not long thereafter), that this is how Saraswati understood Bhagavati initiation. Saraswati may have meant more than simply Hari Nam initiation, as the expression “bhajana siksha” is also bandied about, but he also argues that mantra-initiation is not particularly important since archana as a devotional process is secondary to chanting the Holy Name, to which end he quotes the relevant Bhagavata- sandarbha section on the necessity of being initiated to engage in archana. Furthermore, the Bhagavata parampara does not seem to need a direct physical connection with the preceding acharya, so it is not altogether out of the question that Saraswati intended (or would have approved) an institution modeled along the lines that you and the Ritviks describe. Even so, since I assume that you would consider puja or archan to be a necessary part of Prabhupada’s institution, some kind of Pancharatrika initiation would be necessary for that purpose. Some kind of ritual initiation signifying membership in the institution would also presumably be part of your vision. This has traditionally been one of the functions of the Pancharatrika initiation, so why not connect the two? It seems more logical to identify the connection as being directly with Prabhupada rather than eliminating initiation entirely. You have sold the elephant, so why not let go of the goad? 2. Problems with “hard” institutions Of course, I am personally not in agreement with any Gaudiya Vaishnavism that does not make Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Radha Krishna milita-tanu, its center. The criticism I have of both Iskcon and the Gaudiya Math is that they seem to be doing this. The GM makes Siddhanta Saraswati and Iskcon Srila Prabhupada their points of reference respectively. As a consequence, they separate themselves from other Vaishnavas who make Gauranga and Radha-Krishna their goal in life; they stress their differences rather than their points of agreement. This is unfortunate. There is no reason why all Vaishnavas who claim to have the common goal of attaining love for Radha and Krishna should not be able to associate with each other. There may be considerations of personal qualifications (questions of character) that enter into play, as well as differences in individual mood (rasa); but the shared common goal should at least guarantee cordiality and even cooperation. Now to return to O’Connell’s terminology, this kind of shared symbol system is what O’Connell was calling a “soft institution.” To a certain extent, such soft institutions are very much operative already. It is possible for us to talk about international Vaishnavism despite the relative weakness of “hard” institutions like Iskcon and the Gaudiya Math. So, in a sense, institutionally speaking, to we appear to be back where we started: loosely affiliated devotees associating according to their own conscience. In some cases, we may use facilities provided by Iskcon or some other Vaishnava group to facilitate association, but the proportion of individuals who accept its authority structure are in the minority and decreasing. Now the question is whether or not such dispersal and decentralization is a good thing. Is small beautiful? You have emphatically stated that you do not think so and you point to the corporate model. (I think that you should consider the fundamental distinction between corporations and democracies; they are hardly the same.) The word O’Connell used to characterize “hard institutions” was “coercive.” I think this is an important word to focus on: <blockquote>"Hard institutions" are those with a centralized executive authority exercising coercive sanctions, and mechanisms for marshalling extensive mundane resources for community interests or for mobilizing the adherents against external threats.</blockquote> Now if we reflect on this definition, we will see not only advantages in such institutions, as you have done, but also disadvantages. Traditional Vaishnavism from the time of Rupa Goswami was consistently suspicious of such hard institutions: Rupa Goswami says not to take many disciples, nor to engage in elaborate projects. Even Gaura Kishor Das Babaji specifically told Saraswati not to take disciples or to live in Kali’s capital city, Calcutta. Saraswati believed it possible to overcome these dangers through commitment to a higher purpose and yukta vairagya. He cited the example of Ramanuja, who distributed a secret mantra far and wide despite the interdiction of his spiritual master. We cannot argue with this insight. Nevertheless, we must try to understand why there was resistance to his innovation and respect that position as having a foundation in the very roots of the tradition. We must also recognize the dangers involved. We should also be aware that Saraswati Thakur himself was somewhat leery of organized religion. You have perhaps seen the article “Putana” that Puru Das likes so much to post. Here is just one paragraph: <blockquote>The idea of an organized church in an intelligible form, indeed, marks the close of the living spiritual movement. The great ecclesiastical establishments are the dikes and the dams to retain the current that cannot be held by any such contrivances. They, indeed, indicate a desire on the part of the masses to exploit a spiritual movement for their own purpose. They also unmistakably indicate the end of the absolute and unconventional guidance of the bona-fide spiritual teacher.</blockquote> The hard institutional model has left many people by the wayside. Persons like us (you, Rochan, and I) have found difficulty with the hard institutional model: unlike me, you still have some faith that it may work effectively with a little fine-tuning: it would be possible to temper the centralized executive authority by introducing democratic institutions and checks and balances, etc. Forgive me if I find this unlikely to happen. It’s too easy for people to walk with their feet. The hard institution taken to the extreme is a fanatical cult, with or without a charismatic guru. It is necessarily exclusive and thus limited in its possibilities. 3. Intermediate Institutions I want to suggest that you look a little more closely at the idea of “intermediate” institutions. Now admittedly, the big problem for a movement in the West is that we don’t have the fallback of Varnashram, however imperfectly applied. In India, though Varnashram is hardly in accordance with the scriptural image of it, nevertheless, Prabhupada was convinced that it had to be established. It has been murder trying to understand what Prabhupada really meant when he asked us to start Varnashram Dharma. Mostly people seem to take it that he meant creating self-sufficient communities, centered on agriculture, and perhaps that is what he meant. Perhaps he was not sure. It has been some time since I read through everything he had to say on the subject, but my feeling is that he meant an extended lay community. Iskcon has failed miserably at creating such a community because it has consistently devalued and driven people away who do not wish to commit to the ascetic in-temple lifestyle. It has not encouraged anyone to seek self-fulfilment in anything other than renunciation and exclusive bhakti, without realizing that all life is on one continuum and that finding one’s place within society is a necessary part of self-discovery. At the same time, it stems the impulse for further spiritual discovery by arrogating a monopoly of spiritual knowledge to itself. This same distressing tendency is found in Narayan Maharaj, too, but at least he can claim to know something. This claim is weaker in Iskcon, and as far as I can see, laughable in the Ritvik group. (What I mean is that their knowledge of the larger tradition is very weak as they restrict themselves so tightly to Prabhupada’s books alone. As such they remove themselves even further from the “soft” institutions of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.) As far as the intermediate institutional model is concerned, I believe there are functioning examples in society. The Baptist Church, for instance, has achieved a fair amount of success through such a model. Anyway, I really have to stop here, but I think that the general discussion is salutary. Hope to hear from you soon. I rather like this pensive, long term debate, rather than the quick thrust and parry. Of course, leaving things too long usually means that everyone loses interest. <hr>Fri, Feb 8 2002 14:14 Jagat Dear Prabhus, I think the ideas of hard, soft and intermediate institutions from Joe's article will be useful, as well as the Weberian concept of "charisma", which though he mentions it only in passing is a fundamental to the . Please allow me to elaborate and forgive me if I get pedantic. The term charisma is as often misunderstood as misused. The way Weber meant it was not as some kind of magical force of personality, but rather as the force that legitimizes what someone says or does as valid. In Gaudiya Vaishnava terms we often talk about "guru, sadhu and shastra" as the three sources of legitimacy -- i.e., the individual bearer of charisma, or personal authority; the sadhus or Vaishnavas -- the social custom of the wider society of Vaishnavas; and the written body of work known as the shastra, which though often called the ultimate authority is in fact overriden by guru and sadhu on many occasions. Where personal charisma is very strong, we get what Weber liked to call a "prophet." I will pass on discussing various categories of prophet, but suffice it to say that where there are prophets, there are usually breaks with the old tradition, the creation of new religious sects and succession problems. Now we have in our recent Gaudiya history, two cases of "prophets." The first is Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, the second is Bhaktivedanta Swami. In a sense, it could be said that Saraswati Thakur broke with the standard Gaudiya Vaishnava model of "soft" and "intermediate" institutions to go the "hard" institutional model. As Rabindra Swarup has said, his disciples got it wrong and ended up with something that looks more like a "hardish intermediate" institution. Srila Prabhupada, to probably no one's surprise more than his own, ended up with the chance to do it right. Now here I think that Rochana is quite right when he says that for Iskcon devotees to go to the Gaudiya Math for advice immediately after Prabhupada's disappearance was to court a Gaudiya Math solution. The current Iskcon solution (MASS) and the Ritvik solution are both attempts to subordinate personal charisma to the "hard" institution in an absolute manner. Wherein lies the problem? The problem lies in the hard-wiring into the tradition of the need to access "personal charisma" or pure devotion through a carrier of that devotion in the spiritual master. This concept is one that is completely subversive to "hard" institutions. As Srila Prabhupada's disciple, Rocana Prabhu, you may say that you revere his institution above spiritual life itself (though curiously you are no longer an active participant in that institution), but your problem of "taking shelter of a bona fide spiritual master" has been solved (in a manner of speaking). For others it has not. Your servant, Jagat

I repeat: Siddhanta Saraswati never says he is the diksha disciple of Gaur Kishor Das Babaji. This is not a diksha sampradaya, Hare Krishna Prabhu. So let's not get hung up. Read Brahman o Vaishnava, especially the middle chapter, and you will see what Saraswati Thakur means about Pancharatrika vidhi and Bhagavata vidhi. In Saraswati's opinion, Bhagavati vidhi is primary, Pancharatrika is secondary. If one has attained perfection on the Bhagavata path, there is no objection to initiating in the Pancharatrika mantras because siddhi is not dependent on those mantras. They are only a tool for use in archan. You may see the shastras that Saraswati Thakur quotes there. The text of this document is translated by Pundarik Vidyanidhi and posted on the Russian library site. The translation is reasonably well done, though I have revised it where I have made use of passages. You may find my article, <a href=http://istagosthi.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=000138&p=>Charismatic renewal and institutionalization in the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism and the Gaudiya Math</a>, useful. Many of the relevant quotes from Brahmin o Vaishnava are cited there. Here is a portion of that article: <h3>Saraswati’s initiation (bhagavati diksha)</h3> Just as Saraswati rejected Brahminical status by birthright, he similarly rejected the idea of automatic accession to guru status by the same means. This doctrine is one of the lynchpins of the Gaudiya Math and requires some detailed analysis, especially since legitimacy in Gaudiya Vaishnavism (even in some cases, to the deviant lines) customarily required initation in a recognized line leading back to one of Chaitanya’s associates. Saraswati claimed to be initiated by Gaura Kishor Das Babaji, but contrary to custom, placed no importance on the line of disciplic succession in which his guru himself had taken initiation and never communicated this line to his own disciples. Rather, he innovated something called the bhagavata-parampara. Furthermore, Saraswati clearly marked his separation from the rest of Gaudiya Vaishnavism by giving initiation to Vaishnavas who had already received the mantra from a family guru (kula-guru). Though some point to the fact that Saraswati “did not have high regard for Bipin Bihari Goswami” (his father’s spiritual master), it seems that his quarrel was not with any individual, by with the entire existing system. Saraswati claimed that the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition had been infected by a kind of ritualistic approach to religion, styled as vidhi-marga, in opposition to the spontaneous devotional spirit of the bhagavata school of Vaishnavism that had existed at the origins of Chaitanya’s movement. Siddhanta Saraswati took initiation from Gaura Kishor Das Babaji in January, 1901. Legend has it that he had to ask his master three times before being accepted, as the humble hermit of lower caste background at first doubted the sincerity of the well-to-do scholar. There are differing ideas about the type of initiation Saraswati received: according to some biographers he was given mantra, for others it was a bhagavati diksha. Not surprisingly, bhagavati diksha is a concept unfamiliar to most people, even those within the Gaudiya Math, as the only kind of initiation current in Vaishnava circles has always been of the pancharatrika type. The result is that many have wasted much time and effort unnecessarily trying to establish that Siddhanta Saraswati received pancharatrika-type mantra initiation from Gaura Kishor Das. We get an idea of what Siddhanta Saraswati meant by bhägavati diksha from his Brahmana o Vaishava essays where he cites the example of Hari Das Thakur, a Muslim convert, who likely never received pancharatrika initation, who says: <blockquote>I have been initiated into a vow to perform a great sacrifice by chant-ing the holy name a certain number of times every day. As long as the vow to chant is unfulfilled, I do not desire anything else. When I finish my chanting, my vow comes to an end (dIkSAra vizrama)... I have vowed to chant ten million names in a month. I have taken this vow (diksha), but it is now nearing its end.(1)</blockquote> Saraswati continues, “Unless one becomes qualified as a sacrificial Brahmin in the sacrifice of chanting the holy names, the name of Krishna does not manifest. Although Hari Das was not a seminal or Vedic Brahmin, he had attained the position of a qualified initiated (daikSa) Brahmin.”(2) In other words, the simple commitment to regularly chant the holy names a certain number of times constitutes bhagavati diksha. Saraswati’s own life bears this out, as not long after receiving this initiation, he took up a vow to chant a billion holy names in Mayapur. Saraswati then goes on to distinguish between the Bhagavata and Pancharatra schools of Vaishnavism. According to his analysis, though there were originally many categories of Vaishnava, all but two of them had been lost. These were the Bhagavatas, whom he associates broadly with bhava-marga, or the path of emotion (raganuga bhakti), and the Pancharatras, who are associated with the ritualistic path of deity worship (vidhi-marga). The former followed the ecstatic path of chanting the Holy Name, the religious procedure meant for the Age of Kali, while the latter followed a path that had been prescribed in a previous age. Saraswati divides the four principal Vaishnava acharyas according to these two categories, assimilating Madhvacharya and Nimbaditya to Bhagavata-marga and Ramanujacharya and Vishnuswami to the latter. Nevertheless, to a greater or lesser extent, he admits there had been an intermingling of the two broad groups of Vaishnavas, with the elements of the Bhagavata culture based on hearing and chanting being accepted by the Pancharatras and the Bhagavatas accepting the need for deity worship on the lower stages of practice (kaniSTha-adhikAra). According to Saraswati, though Madhva strictly speaking followed the bhagavata-marga and Madhavendra Puri had accepted initiation in his line, neither Madhavendra nor Chaitanya accepted his doctrines, which had in time been infiltrated by pancharatrika ideas. In fact, at a certain point Saraswati even equates Madhva’s “Tattva-väda” with Pancharatra. Saraswati cites Baladeva Vidyabhushan who, though considered by many to be wholly responsible for the Gaudiyas claims of connection to the Madhvas, pointed out four teachings in the Madhva line to be particularly unacceptable to Gaudiya Vaishnavas. Thus, Saraswati says, “This Tattva-väda, or pancharatrika system, is not acceptable in the opinion of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Rather, He taught the path of bhagavata-marga.” Saraswati further goes on to associate everything that is connected to the vidhi-märga with Pancharatra, and all that is with the raga-marga to the Bhagavata path. This is particularly significant, especially in view of the claims of traditional Gaudiyas to be faithfully following the rägänuga process and to whom initiation and the practice of rägänugä are integrally linked. He writes, Saraswati then directly criticizes the situation in the contemporary Gaudiya Vaishnava world: Saraswati's criticism extended to the hereditary gurus of the Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya for further distortions: Followers of the Gaudiya Math hold that the siddha-pranali tradition is not to be found in the earliest texts of the school. They have a very different idea of the practice of rägänugä bhakti. The spiritual identity is something that spontaneously comes out of one’s inner being as a result of purification through spiritual practice and not through formal instruction. This implication is present in the following statement by Saraswati disciple, Sridhar Maharaj: To summarize, it would appear that Saraswati went beyond simply criticism of the deterioration of morality in the sampradaya, but attacked some of its most cherished institutions, which had been established as early as the Kheturi festival. =====NOTES======= (1) CC 3.3.240-1, 124. These translations are by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami, which Pundarika Vidyanidhi uses throughout his translation of Brähmaëa o Vaiñëava. Swami translates dékñä as vow, which seems to fit the context. Neither Siddhanta Saraswati nor Bhaktivinoda Thakur have explained these verses in their commentaries to CC. (2) Brähmaëa o Vaiñëava, 108. The context here is interesting, since Hari Das says that he has almost finished the dékñä, which is a vow to complete a certain limited performance of chanting, i..e. chanting a certain number of Holy Names within a predetermined period of time. A lengthy discourse on the history of initiation is impossible here at this time. Suffice it to say that in the original Vedic context where the word dékñä was found. As Gonda intimates in his magistral article on dékñä correctly indicates that the Tantric (and päïcharätrika) rite of initiation is more closely modeled on the Brahminical upanayana. (“Dékñä,” in Change and Continuity in Indian Religion. The Hague: Mouton and Co., 1965, 444ff) “According to the scriptural injunction, a Brahmin has three births: the first is from his mother, the second comes at the time of taking the sacred thread; the third comes with initiation into the sacrifice.” (Manu 2.169). It may be that Saraswati was in fact reverting to a more primordial concept of initiation as a genuine rebirth, or conversion, rather than a ritual formality of any kind.

Sorry about that sorry post. Some really bad sentences in there. Gotta go pick up my son. Haribol!!

Hmm. I don't recognize myself very much in your assessment of my position. My argument, briefly stated, was based on Jung's understanding of the archetypes. As you recall, the origin of that discussion was centered on the guru. There is a very common thread running between the two kinds of relations, i.e., disciple to guru, lover to beloved. In Jungian terms, in one sense no person is truly an individual, but a conscious entity floating on an ocean of unconscious psychic contents. These psychic contents are filled with complexes that constellate as archetypes, or personified forms. The individual ego identifies with a persona that he or she prioritizes over other possibilities, and then proceeds to suppress those other elements of the psyche that may oppose or challenge this prioritized idea of self. Jung saw the integration of these unconscious complexes as the goal of individuation. Now typical suppressed complexes include the anima for men (the female side) and the animus or male side in the woman. When such elements are suppressed, then the tendency is to project them outside of oneself. This of course happens most dangerously with "the shadow", the evil parts of oneself that we all try to deny. We project this evil externally onto Mayavadis, guru-tyagis, karmis, Jews, blacks, Arabs, women (in a combination shadow/anima), Chinamen, whatever happens to be convenient. Because everything we see outside ourselves is to a great or lesser degree clouded by projections, we can never really know anything in truth. This is Jung's version of "Maya," the dance of veils. Whatever else passionate love may be, it includes a healthy portion of anima-animus projection. Though in cosmic terms there may be nothing wrong with that--it is a natural part of the life process--nevertheless, it is Maya in the truest sense of the word. If one understands the mechanics that are operative, falling in love can be a very fruitful exercise in self-understanding and self-realization. In other words, through maturing. And of course, even the experience of possession has a value that is almost mystical in nature--thus the preponderance of mystical/erotic associations in world religions. Now I think that something closely parallel takes place in the guru-disciple relationship. The disciple projects the inner archetype of the wise man/woman, which arises out of the unfulfilled and indeed often suppressed instinct to seek and achieve wisdom. As a matter of fact, the more suppressed that instinctual desire has been, the more likely that the guru relationship will take on the character of a "possession" through intense conversion experiences, obsessive attachments, etc. This does not mean that this is necessarily a bad thing. Here again, I was contrasting sexual love with this "guru" love. Western society places great value on "falling in love". It is encouraged, glorified, apotheosed and seen as a general "good thing." On the other hand, the love for a guru or wise man is often seen as the root of all evil; just look at all the cult hysteria. Love can be good or bad; taking shelter of a guru can also be good or bad. Depends on whether it is a healthy or a sick relationship, i.e., on whether the two partners in the relationship use it to transcend Maya or to deepen the illusion. Boys and girls in love often look weird and do strange things. If this love becomes pathological, they will do really strange things. The same happens with disciples. On the other hand, if the relationship matures, it will be very fruitful. For this to happen, the guru has to be really wise and not just putting on an act. The guru and disciple who are partners in a cheating process take each other to hell. We in the West tend to go gaga over our gurus, because of the suppression of wisdom and the desacralization of the wise in our culture. In India, no one really ever forgets the human part of the guru. The sacred/mundane nexus is more fluid. This means that they can, hopefully, grow up. This is all theory. Sorry to slip off into my topic, but it was because I am still trying to find out out what we are talking about. Yours, Jagat P.S. Your essay was good. Did you get an "A"? <font color=#dedfdf><small> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-23-2002).]

Please forgive the above post. It is in some need of editing, which I don't have time for now. Please be sara-grahis. Your servant, Jagat

All of this can quite easily be resolved if we remember that Siddhanta Saraswati himself NEVER claimed to have received Pancharatrika initation from Babaji Maharaj, but Bhagavati diksha. The debate thus shifts to the following: What constitutes bhagavati diksha? We have been debating this issue for years. Have a close look at Saraswati Thakur's "Brahman o Vaishnava" book. There he specifically states that the Bhagavata parampara is not dependent on Pancharatrika initiation. Saraswati deliberately separated himself from the Pancharatrika "mantra businessmen" and started a new sampradaya. What is interesting is that subsequent to Saraswati Thakur, legitimacy in the Gaudiya Math has once again be established by Pancharatrika initiation. The Ritvikvadis, for instance, claim that the system of Bhagavati diksha to Srila Prabhupada is still possible, and that the external act of Pancharatrika initiation is a mere formality. This is exactly Saraswati Thakur's position. There are a number of Srila Prabhupada quotes, especially from his letters, that also support this. They have been quoted on the diksha and siddha pranali threads on this forum. I have found three definitions of Bhagavati diksha--one appears to be the transmission of the desire to serve (i.e., the conversion experience is the real initiation; or the "planting of the bhakti-lata bija"), the second is the giving of the order to engage in Harinam. (Saraswati quotes the use of the word diksha in Haridas Thakur's speech to the prostitute from Chaitanya Charitamrita as support.) The third would be a wholehearted commitment to the teachings of the guru. Saraswati's "bhagavati diksha" in 1901 was followed shortly afterward by a committed attempt to perform a yajna of a billion Holy Names, so it seems to me that the second definition was the one Saraswati gave most importance to. This is also the one he gives in the "Brahmana o Vaishnava" booklet. Historically speaking, we have a number of conflicting reports, but I think that we can take it on the evidence provided by Saraswati himself that (1) he never took Pancharatrika initiation from Gaura Kishor Das Babaji Maharaj; (2) this was a deliberate choice on his part (or perhaps that of his guru); (3) that he held Pancharatrika initiation to be subordinate to Bhagavati diksha and that therefore one who had the latter could give the former, even without having received the same. Unfortunately these ideas are a bit revolutionary for many of us to comprehend. This may be attributable to a certain "sthula buddhi" (please see the discussion on the currently active diksha thread on this forum). However, I would say that the majority of people in Iskcon and the Gaudiya Math have either not understood or not been able to communicate this fundamental premise about initiation, even though Sridhar Maharaj clearly stated that the Gaudiya Math was a "siksha" sampradaya, not a "diksha" sampradaya. As I said, the adherence to Pancharatrika norms in the period subsequent to Saraswati Thakur are proof enough of this. (Pancharatrika initiation is necessary for an institution, to establish legitimacy.) This idea is not without merit and I believe that it existed prior to Saraswati Thakur himself. On the whole, the idea is that we all belong to a family of devotees who follow the ideals of Rupa and Raghunath. Saraswati Thakur chose to separate himself from the other "followers of Rupa and Raghunath" for numerous reasons, most of which you are no doubt familiar with. Nevertheless, it is always possible for us to revive that sense of belonging to one spiritual family. In order for that to happen, however, we must put a little water into our wine on the initiation issue. Those in the diksha sampradayas will never accept the siksha sampradaya as bona fide. They will always say, "If you accept the siksha, then you will accept the siksha about diksha." This will be very hard to overcome. On the other hand, those in the Gaudiya Math must come to a proper understanding of the nature of Bhagavati diksha and all that it entails vis-à-vis the traditional Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya. (1) That Pancharatrika initiation transmitted without the Bhagavati diksha (or conversion experience) is useless. (2) That Saraswati Thakur did indeed start a new sampradaya, the Brahma Madhva Gaudiya Saraswata sampradaya. Though it is new, it claims to be true to the original goals of Mahaprabhu, Rupa and Raghunath. (3) That Saraswati's ideas connected to Siddha pranali are intrinsically and deeply connected to this debate. (4) That Saraswati's ideas connected to Daiva Varnashram are intrinsically and deeply connected to this debate. In either case, on whatever side of the debate we stand, we should try to avoid Vaishnava aparadh. Because someone has decided to accept the traditional view of Gaudiya Vaishnava diksha does not mean that he has not received bhagavati diksha in the three senses given above. On the other hand, those who are in the traditional sampradayas, without necessarily agreeing with Saraswati's solutions, should (and I think in most cases do) admire his commitment to the Holy Names and the teachings of Rupa and Raghunath and thus wholeheartedly endorse most of what he has done. Problems only arise when we set out to deliberately blacken the reputation of the other side, ludicrously accusing others falsely of things like institutionalized transvestism or orgyism. There will always be a divide between the two sections of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. The division was born out of certain fundamental differences. This is not a reason that we cannot find a certain sense of brotherhood and affection for each other. This, at least, is my hope. Jagadananda Das <font color=#f7f7f7><small> [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-23-2002).]

For that matter, are you being atmika or anuga raga? I know the answer...

Shiva has been adamant from the beginning that he does not accept any sampradayika authority. He is following his own path, for he sees the guru everywhere. We shape the present by our futures, Shiva. There is no such thing as being without becoming. Nietzsche said, "Become what you are." So what are you? I mean, really.

Thank you for this elucidation on Plato. But I am not quite sure how it responds to my discussion of archetypal possession, and the analogy of anima possession to guru possession. This was the subject on which you promised to expand my understanding.

The verse appears in CCMK 13.42; CC 2.8.69 and Padyavali 13. The reading I have is the only one I see.

The earliest commentary on the Bhagavatam is really Vopadeva's Muktaphala, which is really a compilation according to subject. Also in the Gaudiya line, Baladeva wrote notes on the Bhagavata, as did Srinath Chakravarti, whose commentary opens with the famous ArAdhyo bhagavAn vrajeza-tanayas verse. Brihad-Vaishnava-toshani is very influential, especially as it forms the basis of Jiva Goswami's interpretation of Krishna lila and led to the Gopala Champu.

Just a word about Jiva Goswami. Krama-sandarbha is really the Six sandarbhas organized in the Bhagavata verse sequence. The Six sandarbhas are organized according to subject matter. That is the meaning of "krama."

<img src=http://www.vedaveda.com/radio/pub/img-pub/008p.jpg>

Dear Suryaz, I haven't time for a reading list. I know the Symposium. If you have assimilated all this learning, surely you can summarize it. I am ready to widen my understanding. Jagat [This message has been edited by Jagat (edited 05-16-2002).]

Just one further comment. Formalizing a relationship is one way of routinizing it. The analogy of diksha to marriage is quite appropriate. There is nothing like marriage to kill romance! It takes love and brings it to a new phase where one commits to transcending the original, purely numinous phase and to maturing in the relationship. In order to do so, one still has to occasionally "find the romance." To expand the idea of archetypal possession to the social arena, which will no doubt stimulate your juices, Suryaz: the charismatic phase of a religious movement is a macro-archetypal possession phenomenon. The rationalization or routinization of the movement sometimes looks like a backward step, but it is in fact maturation. Calls to "return to the Golden Age" are calls to "find the romance." Those who try to routinize charisma often find themselves in a position of criticism vis-à-vis the guru/founder. Many of the radical ideas that originally appealed, motivated and inspired are seen as impractical. By the way, I thought the synchronicity comments were very good and relevant. The fundamental synchronicity on the path is the encounter with Sat Guru.