shiva

Jagat you wrote In the same way that a student of medicine who is in awe and reverence of his teacher loses that awe and reverence when he becomes a trained experienced doctor. At that stage what was once seen as above you, becomes commonplace. You then wrote You're mixing up rasa tattva with existential ontology (which you do all of the time). Lakshmi is a personal expansion of Radha i.e she is Radha. So the idea of Lakshmi not being able to attain vrndavan has a deeper esoteric intent rather then simply saying it is because she is approaching with vidhi rather then raga. The point of this idea is that raga doesn't come without a previous stage of awe and reverence. It is simply impossible to go to the higher level of intimacy with God unless you go through the non intimate stage beforehand. Before there is intimacy there is awe and reverence. It cannot be different unless you are born in the spiritual world. You also wrote Clearly Govinda Maharaja was paraphrasing for his vaisnava sadhaka audience. If we use your strict translation then we don't necessarily end up with the true intent of the verse. Your translation of "upon the breaking down of the attitude of gaurava" doesn't necessarily convey the intent of the verse. Someone's gaurava can break down but not necessarily due to intimacy e.g a person may give up respect and reverence out of hatred or disbelief etc. You also wrote I would have to disagree that the "arrogance of the raganuga bhakta" is what you claim. The manjaris or any residents of vraja are not practicing bhakti yoga, they are ragatmika bhaktas living spontaenously without thoughts of attaining something higher then where they are. Someone who is not them nor who has ever spoken to them, shouldn't speculate on their inner thoughts, otherwise they can only come across as arrogant. The raganuga bhakta willl see a oneness with Radha but it is not due to "arrogance" rather it is due to self realization i.e they experience their oneness with God. The manjaris in vraja do not see themselves as leaves of the Radha vine, they are not self realized souls, they are simple cowherd girls.

It's really quite simple. You don't need to take formal initiation but you do need guidance. Without guidance you will be unable to gain entrance into the esoteric realm of the absolute.. The sastra can help, but for a person lacking self realization the sastra needs to be expounded on in furthur detail in order for the esoteric message within the shastra to be understood. If there is the availability of advanced association which can enlighten you to the higher levels then one should take that. Personal association is best because you can ask questions. But the vani or association through the message of the spiritual master is really all that is required. So the point is that you need some siksa guidance beyond shastra in order to help illuminate the true message and intent of the name and shastra. Bhaktivinoda says this from your quote "they take, by unbounded grace of Krsna, shelter at the feet of such a spiritual guide who is an ontologist of the holy name, i.e., who has realized and does see the svarüpa (form) of the holy name." What is the svarupa of the name? The name and the Lord are nondifferent, so the form of the name is the form of the Lord. You can take "shelter at the feet of a spiritual guide" who has realized the form of the Lord (knows the Lord personally) by that person's vani, his words.

No it's not. The Sutra is saying that there is no cause for everything in existence. It is a misunderstanding of the sutra to think that it is saying that the jiva does not originate from the Lord, there is a big difference. The Lord does not create the jiva and nowhere in the Pancharatra or Bhagavata doctrine do we find different. But the Lord is the origin of the jiva because the Lord is the origin of everything. Swami Sivananda gives us three translations of Utpatti: causation, origination, creation. These 3 are not the same. If a drop of water in the ocean finds it's origin in the ocean that is different then saying the drop of water in the ocean was created or caused by the ocean. All jivas and everything in existence finds their origin in the Lord but their essence is not created by the Lord because that essence is without beginning. Just like if I take a few gallons of water out of the ocean in order to create an aquarium in my house. It would be wrong to say that I actually created a mini ocean in my glass container. But it would be correct to say that I manipulated the ocean water to create a unique situation where the ocean water in my aquarium is functioning separately from the ocean as a mini ocean. All existence is like that. Everything is essentially comprised of the same eternal beginningless substance, but the Lord manipulates that self same substance and by doing so the varieties of existence comes into being. The whole point of this criticism of the Bhagavata and Pancaratras by the Advaitins is because they believe that the goal of life is to go back to the essential undifferentiated state of existence, to turn back into Brahman without a personal existence to live life with. They believe that losing their personality and differentiatedness from Brahman is the goal of life. Which is fairly foolish if you think about it. I mean why would Brahman become us if the goal of life for us is lose our individuality only to become Brahman again? That philosophy is based on a simplistic and errant understanding of the Upanishads. Here we see misrepresentations. "Vaasudeva constitutes the Ultimate Cause, of which the three others are the effects." The three others are not effects nor are they different from Vasudeva. They are all Vasudeva engaged in different activities therefore they are given different nomenclatures in order to teach us the variety of activities of the Lord. Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha are all one and the same Lord. If I wear one type of clothes for when I work in the garden and then a different type of clothes for when I attend a marriage ceremony and then a different type of clothes when I fight in a battle we would not say that there is a cause and effect relationship between the clothes I wear in relation to each other. Secondarily Sankarsana does not refer to the jiva. Sankarsana is the Lord of the Jiva, the origin of the jiva (in the sense of the drop of water in the ocean having it's origin in the ocean) More misrepresentation. The Sutra is refering to the oneness of everything within Brahman. Since everything has it's origin in Brahman therefore although there is the appearance of one thing being created by another thing in reality everything already exists in some form or another. For example if we take gold and make bangles it may appear that the bangle was created by an artisan, and in one sense it was. But in the absolute sense the gold already existed and the person who built the bangle simply manipulated that which already existed. So the sutra is telling us that everything in existence was never created because in the absolute sense everything is a manifestation of a manipulation of the eternal substance of Brahman, which is without creation. Therefore the sutra tells us that the substance of reality was not created. "But the Bhagavatas teach that from an agent, viz., the individual soul termed Sankarshana, there springs its internal instrument or mind (Pradyumna) and from the mind, the ego or Ahamkara (Aniruddha)." The Bhagavata does not teach that. Sankarsana is the origin of jiva, the abode of the jiva, one and different from the jiva. Aniruddha and Pradyumna as ego and mind are not the product of the jiva and nowhere in the Bhagavata do we find such teachings. What is the material ego (ahankara)? It is the illusioned vision of the jiva. The ahankara springs up from the mahat-tattva (material world) in the sense that this world we see around us fools us into accepting that which is not real as real. We see so much variety and so much apparent cause and effect that we take everything in the world as being independently occuring free from an overarching transcendant control. We see people places and things as being the causes of all effects. In truth everything is one with and controlled by the Lord. Without that vision and knowledge the ahankara arises from the perception of the world as separate from the Lord. From that state of illusion the mind is then taken to also be independent and so the jiva identifies with the mind. In a sense the mind of the jiva evolves from the jiva's false ego of being identical to or in control of the mind. The mind is actually the Lord as will be explained in the next verses. Therefore the ahankara is considered to be equal to the material world and the material mind and senses because the false perception of reality is causing those things to exist. In truth the material world and mind and senses only exist in the conception of the jiva under the influence of ahankara. The ahankara is the source of the gross elements in the sense that the material world is material only in the vision of a person in illusion. The truth is that everything is a manifestation of the Lord and controlled at all times by the Lord, with that vision the jiva no longer sees the world as a place where anything is separate from the Lord because everything is the Lord and the Lord is controlling everything. The mind of the jiva is in reality the Lord and this is experienced when the jiva is free from the false association (ahankara) with the mind. In the previous commnetary we find that (Sankara and Swami Sivananda) said that the Bhagavata teaches that Sankarsana is the jiva and that Aniruddha and Pradyumna are created by the jiva. Here in this sutra we find that it is saying that Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha are no doubt Isvara. This is what the Pancaratra and Bhagavat actually teaches as well. That logic is in error. The Lord is equally present everywhere, if the Lord wants to take on trillions of different forms engaged in different activities how is it that those trillions of forms are more then one Isvara? The Lord is one but that one Lord can take on an infinite number of forms all equally the same all pervading Lord. The forms of the Lord are not "born" from one to another. One form of the Lord does not "cause" another form of the Lord to exist because they all exist eternally. Therefore there is no cause and effect relationship between forms of the Lord. The Bhagavata teaches that the Lord is one and that the Lord is equally present everywhere. The confusion comes from misunderstanding the nature of the concept of the expansions of the Lord. An expansion of the Lord is the Lord who acts in a different capacity from other expansions of the Lord. They are all the same all pervading Lord but in order to show that there is a difference in the activities of the Lord they are explained in this manner. The original form of the Lord according to the Bhagavata is Sri Krishna. All expansions proceed from Sri Krishna. What does this mean? Sri Krishna is the form of the Lord where he enjoys life free from any other consideration. Since this is the primary purpose of the Lord this is considered the original form of the Lord. Also Krishna displays the Lord's full male qualities, characteristics, and personality, whereas the expansions from Sri Krishna exist for differing purposes and display differing amounts of the Lords personal qualities and characteristics or personality. The use of the analogy of the clay and the pot is of no value because the clay is causing the pot to exist and the clay and the pot are different in capacity, whereas all expansions of the Lord are the same Lord displaying differing activities but with equal capacity. There is no cause and effect because the so called effect is identical to cause whereas the clay and pot are not identical. The clay changes into a pot whereas the expansion of the Lord is not different from any other form of the Lord. There is no change in existential quality like there is between clay and a pot. Clay cannot do what a pot can do which furthur weakens the analogy because a pot can be used in so many ways whereas clay is useless until manipulated into some useful object. The Lord and the Lord's expansions are all the same all pervading Lord being described in such a way so as to educate us on the personal nature and activities of the Lord. The Brahma Sutra is not arguing against the Pancharatra doctrine, that is the imagination of the commentator. It is arguing against the idea that anything came into existence at some point in time being caused by another thing. The point being that in reality everything has always existed in one form or another, the Lord simply manipulates what already exists (which is the Lord) and manifests a variety of seemingly different objects with seemingly different causes. These verses are not arguing agaisnt the Bhagavata doctrine at all. There are not inconsistencies but rather intricacies with deep metaphors and analogies. With a challenging mentality and without a submissive attitude when approaching the Bhagavata and Panchratras the deep esoteric knowledge contained therein will be seen but not heard and understood. What passages are contradictory to the Vedas and are depreciative towards the Vedas? The Vedas are the foundational texts which the Bhagavata and Pancaratras are based upon. They are furthur detailed expositions of the truths of the Vedas. If there is a book about life where the author mentions in a paragraph the importance of exercise, and then there is another book about life written specifically and only about exercise, which book would be more helpful if you wanted to learn to exercise? This is the importance of the Bhagavata and Pancaratras. The Upanishads contain the highest wisdom of this there is no doubt, but the Bhagavata and Pancaratras go into more detail on the various topics introduced in the Upanishads. The Advaitins who seek to discredit the Bhagavata and Pancaratras in trying to establish Advaita philosophy as the highest truth and the essence of the Vedas are simply in illusion.

That translation is not correct and the commentary is by an advaitin who clearly has not the purpose of bringing enlightenment but instead to try and refute the more popular understanding in order to bring adulation upon himself from less intelligent people. Advaitins have been saying for many hundreds of years that the Brahma Sutras refute the vaisnava and bhagavata teachings. They sometimes do what Swami Sivananda has done in the commentary you provided, which is that first they mistranslate the text and then they misrepresent the vaisnava perspective in order to make some foolish impersonal conclusion. The definitive gaudiya vaisnava commentary on the Brahma Sutras is Srimad Bhagavatam. Since both the Brahma Sutras and the Bhagavatam were written by Sri Vyasa we certainly do not need fools, imposters, and cheaters, proclaiming their nonsense "commentary" to be superior to that of Srila Vyasadeva.

The youngest son of Aditi was Lord Vamanadeva who is one of the Dasavatars. Krishna is just "one of the Yadavas" yet still God. If you accept the Vedic literature then it is made clear that the various Vishnu's are all one and the same supreme lord as Krishna, Narayana, Ramachandra, Vamanadeva etc. Not all knowledge is presented in detail in the Vedic Samhitas. That is why we have the smriti i.e Puranas, Itihasas etc. Much or most of the Vedic samhitas are allegorical in nature which is why the smriti is needed.

It seems to me that the person you are writing about as "your guru" that you are basing this conclusion on a "feeling". This is what you said: Not knowing you all I can say is that it appears that when when you were a young person you were very enthusiastic about bhakti, but as you entered your teen years that enthusiasm waned. This is understandable. The teen years for most people are about seeking independence and seeking to enjoy that which was forbidden or unknown as a child. When you got a bit older, more mature, 18, you went to a lecture and were insipired towards bhakti once again. There are different types of gurus. The vartma pradarsaka is the guru who inspires you towards bhakti, the siksa guru is the guru or gurus who you receive tattva jnana from, spiritual knowledge. The diksa guru is the guru who initiates you. There is too much emphasis on the driving need and necessity of a diksa guru in some circles. This leads to situations like yours where you feel it is a pressing need to find someone to give you diksa. You then feel distraught and lacking in your spiritual life if you cannot get initiated or find the proper diksa guru. That is not a good mentality to be in. It leads to taking someone, anyone, as diksa guru based on either the desire to be initiated in order to be intiated, or to want initation from someone due to an emotional response to a person's charisma or speaking skill. It could be that the person whom you think is "my guru" was a vartma pradarsaka guru who Krishna arranged to inspire you to take up bhakti once again, or he could be one amongst a series of siksa gurus whom you will meet, or he could be someone worth taking diksa from. It seems to me that you may be transferring your desire for intimacy onto a person who is not able to give you what you want. What you seem to want more then anything is intimacy from a spiritually advanced person. Maybe you should seek that in a husband? A guru is needed if someone wants to learn from that person. Personal intimacy is not so important in that case. Association through the words is the essence of the guru sisya relationship. Maybe Krishna is trying to tell you something by not allowing you intimate association with "your guru"?

Here is another way to look at it using the analogy of a computer virtual reality simulation. In a virtual reality environment everything you see is comprised of pixels which are being controlled by the person controlling the computer. We can call that person and the computer he is controlling the god of the virtual reality world. The rest of the participants who are interacting in that virutal reality world cannot control the game nor can they do anything without the permission of the person controlling the game i.e they cannot create more then one identity for themselves, they cannot change what the controller of the game wishes to do. The person controlling the virtual reality can do as he likes. In essence the entire virtual reality environment is an extension of his will and desire. He can create as many identities for himself as he likes, he can shape the environment to his liking, he can do anything because the controlling computer is in control of every single pixel in the game. In the same way we exist within a virtual world comprised of God. Just like the virtual bodies in the computer virtual world are comprised of the computer's pixels, our bodies and souls and minds are comprised of God. God can create as many identities for him/her self as desired with varied forms and personalities within this virtual world we live in. Everything exists within and is comprised of God just like everything in a computer virtual reality environment is comprised of the computer's pixels. The difference is that the computer and the controller of the computer are two different things. The computer is the substance of the virtual world and the controller is different from the computer. Whereas in the real world God is both the controller and the substance of everything. In reality God is everything and everything is part of God. Plenary expansion is a name given to an aspect of God to help us understand what God is. It's not that God "expands" like a cell dividing. The reason the concept of "expansion" is used is because we are being taught that the various forms of the Lord do not all display the same personality and do not engage in the same activities. There is an "original" from whence the rest have all "expanded" from in the sense of there are differences in the amount and type of God's personal characteristics which are being displayed by the various forms of God. Krishna is considered to be the original male personality from whence all the rest have expanded from. This is because Krishna displays God's male personality in full. The rest of the male forms of God display less of God's personality even though they are all the same all pervading God as Krishna. The story of Prahlada is meant to teach us that God is fully present everywhere. The demon king Hiranyakasipu was angry at Prahlada's belief in God and asked him that "If Vishnu is omnipresent then is he in this pillar?" Prahlada answered yes. Hiranyakasipu then tried to prove him wrong by smashing the pillar. At that point Narasinghadeva the half man half lion incarnation of Vishnu appeared out of the pillar and destroyed Hiranyakasipu's disbelief in the omnipresence of the Lord.

Brahma Samhita 5.46 "The light of one candle being communicated to other candles, although it burns separately in them, is the same in its quality. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda who exhibits Himself equally in the same mobile manner in His various manifestations." Plenary can mean different things but in this context it kind of means duplicate. The basic idea is that God is a single all pervading all powerful person. God exists everywhere and everything is comprised of God and everything is being conducted by the will and energy of God. The various "plenary expansions" of the Lord are all that same single all pervading person. Whether it is Narayana, Maha Vishnu, Krishna, etc, there is one all pervading entity and they are all that person. The analogy of the candle is given because if one candle is used to light other candles then those other candle flames can be considered to be the same fire as the original flame, although they may appear to be different because they are different candles. So even though the plenary expansions of the Lord are numerous and look different and are engaged in different activities still they are all the same all pervading Lord.

Puru I was refering to the post that someone made. Here was my point. This was the section of the book that the person quoted from. First the translated verse: Then the commentary continues for that verse. After that first verse comes 63 more like this: It was confusing because the first verse appears to have a commentary by Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura while the rest do not, nor is there an indication that the commentary for the remaining verses are those of Srila Narayana Maharaja because as in the first verse where "Comment" is used to denote Srila Narayana Maharaja's commentary the rest do not say "Comment". So like I said it was difficult for me to know who was saying what. This was quoted by someone earlier from that commentary which caused me to post what I did on this topic: That seemed to be the commentary on this verse cited above: What Srila Narayana Maharaja has done is make it seem like the above verse says what Srila Narayana Maharaja is saying in his commentary above. But since he makes no clear demarcation between his commentary and whether or not Srila Thakura has made these comments in the above or elsewhere it is difficult to know who says what. For the life of me I can't see how Srila Narayana Maharaja sees what he sees in what Srila Thakura is saying in the verse he is commenting on. So I don't know if Srila Narayana Maharaja was refering to some other verse or what he meant to say. What I had written was that it is confusing trying to figure out what was commentary and what was direct translation.

It's not about teaching that you shouldn't take mantra diksa if you have the opportunity, it's about making false claims about the "absolute necessity" of taking mantra diksa. As far as saying only liberated souls don't need mantra diksa, that is a silly statement. Liberated souls don't need to do any sadhana or chant any mantra or do any purificatory rite of any type. It's funny how you like to mention the purport to Madhya 15.108 as if it supports your views. Here is the verse which the purport is for: diksa-purascarya-vidhi apeksa na kare jihva-sparse a-candala sabare uddhare 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. And then this from the purport: The part you think supports your views should be taken into consideration with the above. We have Sri Caitanya telling us: diksa-purascarya-vidhi apeksa na kare jihva-sparse a-candala sabare uddhare 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. Acaryas may at various times speak of the importance of mantra diksa as being helpful and that people should be initiated if they can, but Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu has it made it clear that it is not an "absolute necessity". Now here we see Mahaprabhu giving us another definition of diksa. Cc Antya 4.192-3 So are we to believe that when a householder undergoes the panca samskara mantra diksa, that is the exact same thing as what Mahaprabhu describes as Diksa? Mahaprabhu answers in the verse that follows the above two. This is Mahaprabhus definition of diksa, he quotes Sri Krishna from the 11th canto 29th chapter of the Bhagavatam. And what context was Sri Krishna speaking in? From 11.29 where Sri Krishna explains Bhakti Yoga to Uddhava: So in conclusion, here we find Sri Krishna giving his opinion of what constitutes "dharman su-mangalan", do we find any reference to Mantra diksa being necessary ? Nope. How about Mahaprabhus definition of Diksa ? diksa-kale bhakta kare atma-samarpana He equates Diksa with "samarpana", full dedication. At that time the devotee becomes: sei-kale krsna tare kare atma-sama Krishna makes the devotee or accepts the devotee to be as good as Himself. And then: martyo yada tyakta-samasta-karma niveditatma vicikirsito me tadamrtatvam pratipadyamano mayatma-bhuyaya ca kalpate vai The living entity who is subjected to birth and death attains immortality when he gives up all material activities, dedicates his life to the execution of My order, and acts according to My directions. In this way he becomes fit to enjoy the spiritual bliss derived from exchanging loving mellows with Me.

Puru you should realize that your attempts at changing the point I was making into something else will be a failure. I was being specific about mantra diksa being necessary for revelation of one's siddha identity. You're only concern is proselytizing to get people to submit to you and your guru. From Srila Prabhupada From Jiva Goswami My point was about how the so called "Absolute Necessity of Second Initiation" is bogus. There is a huge difference between "helpful" and "absolute necessity". People who say that one's eternal relationship with the Lord is dependent on mantra diksa and an "Absolute necessity" are to me simply inexperienced with the real situation.

Puru das I disagree that ones "illumination of one’s eternal identity arising from their diksa.-mantra which they received from their diksa-guru" is a correct translation, or at least not a very good one since it implies the necessity of mantra diksa in order to realize one's siddha identity. The way Tripurari Swami explains that section of that book makes more sense: "By the term svarupa-jnana in this context Bhaktivinoda Thakura is referring to knowledge (jnana) of the nature (svarupa) of suddha-bhakti and not one's "svarupa" or spiritual identity that arises from the cultivation of one's diksa mantra." Srila Narayana Maharaja makes it seem that a person's siddha identity is revealed through the diksa mantra and the guru. And this seems to be a big thing amongst various others as well i.e the necessity of mantra diksa and guru in order to attain your siddha identity. I find that philosophy to be apasiddhanta. Discovery of ones spiritual identity is not dependent on mantra diksa nor on any guru, it is dependent on the will of the Lord in revealing that to you. Anybody who says that mantra diksa is necessary or that a guru is needed to reveal your siddha identity is inexperienced in these matters. They may make a pretense of being siksa gurus on these higher topics, but it is obvious that they have no real experience of what they speak on.

Puru you quoted this from Srila Narayana Maharaja's translation of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's 'Bhakti-tattva-viveka'. I cannot find any other translation of that work. Since what is presented sounds to me to be completely contradictory to gaudiya siddhanta from numerous acaryas and from other works of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura I cannot accept it. What I did find was Tripurari Swami commenting on the above. Here is what he says, in light of what I know from numerous other sources I fully agree with his conclusion.

He made a mistake, it should be anuccheda 283 http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/gss/sastra/literature/gosvamis/jiva/bhakti/bhakti10.doc

What is divya-jnana in this context? Jiva Goswami explains: It's not that the gayatri mantra is some magic incantation whereupon chanting you are given access to reams of transcendental knowledge mystically imbued into your mind, and that if you aren't initiated that knowledge is not available to you. That's not how it works, if only it were so easy. The divya jnanam Jiva Goswami is referring to are the descriptions of the Lord's form in that mantra.

Srila Narayana Maharaja has written a translation and commentary to the Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu-bindu in such a way that it is difficult to know where translation ends and commentary begins and it is difficult to know how precise the translation is because there is no word for word. This is what Jiva Goswami wrote and what they are commenting on: This section is on arcana, deity worship. In it Jiva Goswami is stressing the importance of diksa because you are not allowed to do arcana in the temple unless you are initiated. He says that while diksa is not necessary it is good for you. If you have the opportunity to take diksa then you should, but without it you can still attain self realization.

From Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura's Raga Vartma Candrika (1.9) udbhUte tAdRze lobhe zAstra darziteSu tat tad bhAva prApty upAyeSu, “AcAryya caitya vapuSA svagatiM vyanakti” ity uddhavokteH, keSucid guru-mukhAt keSucid abhijJa mahodayAnurAgi bhakta mukhAt abhijJAteSu keSucid bhakti mRSta citta-vRttiSu svata eva sphuriteSu, sollAsam evAtizayena pravRttiH syAt. yathA kAmArthinAM kAmopAyeSu. || 1.9 || “When the aforementioned sacred greed has appeared in the heart, one becomes enlightened in different ways. Uddhava Mahasaya says in Srimad Bhagavata 11.29.6: ‘Krishna reveals Himself through the acarya (spiritual master) or through the agency of the Supersoul.’ Thus some devotee attains knowledge about the moods of Krishna and His Vraja associates from the mouth of a guru, some from the mouth of a learned raganuga devotee, and some, whose hearts have been purified by the practise of devotional service, will have this knowledge directly revealed to them from within their hearts. Then, just as a sense enjoyer automatically becomes engaged in having his senses gratified, without depending on anyone’s encouragement, similarly the raganugiya aspirant will automatically be seen as very happy in attaining his desired feelings.”

Could you post the words of Jiva Goswami you have a problem with? I'll try and give my perspective.

Not quite. I was given Hari Nama diksa almost 30 years ago by a disciple of Srila Prabhupada (1978) and then mantra diksa a few years later by another disciple of Srila Prabhupada (both left Iskcon eventually). I was just making philosophical conversation, I wasn't commenting on an inability to find suitable gurus.

I have to disagree with anyone who says that diksa is absolutely necessary. We are told many times by the acaryas that it is helpful (better to be initiated then not) but that it is not required. From Jiva Goswami's Sri Bhakti-sandarbha. Here he talks about the necessity of mantra diksa in order to engage in deity worship i.e he says that deity worship is important for ordinary householders because they are generally engrossed in worldly affairs. Because you cannot worship the deity without mantra diksa (gayatri initiation) he makes it a point of advising householders on the importance of mantra diksa so they can engage in deity worship and by doing so establish a relationship with the Lord. From Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu Madhya 24.331: From Srila Prabhupada purport Madhya 15.108: Puru Das/Siddhanta you quoted this from Srila Narayana Maharaja: That's an illogical and contradictory statement. How can the first part be true? i.e "The offenseless chanting of the holy name does not depend on the initiation process" when it contradicts the second part? i.e "It can only become pure through that diksa process". That statement is self contradictory. It's one or the other, it cannot be both. I wrote this a few years ago:

I'm sorry if I'm being too intellectual for you, there are others besides you who read this forum, maybe they can understand. I don't really "practice" anymore since I've learned all the chords by heart and know all the lyrics backwords and forwards. But hey that's me, practice makes perfect, so keep it up and one day you'll get it down.

Your previous post to that one was a bizarre one to say the least. You say that everything is dependent on the "krpa of the guru" but apparently you have a hard time describing what that krpa is. You wrote: First off I didn't "inquire how any mantra can yield the fruit of genuine transcendental realization". What I wrote was this: Then you said we cannot discuss about what I wrote unless we have a "clear understanding of the mercy of the diksa and siksa gurus". I asked you what you meant by "mercy". You then quoted a bunch of stuff which really didn't answer the question. Then I asked you to put it in your own words. You then tell me you can't do that because I don't deserve your holy words or something. Well that's your right. No one can force the mercy from you. For me the point I was making still stands. The mantra does not convey an unlimited amount of knowledge. It is a tool for advancement in self realization. The knowledge we need to come close to Sri Radha Krishna comes from guru, sastra, sadhu and from experience. For the closest relationship there is no substitute for experience, most especially the experience of our own internal search for our relationship with Radha Krishna. We look for God in books, in mantras, in others, and all of that is good and is beneficial and is even necessary. But for discovering and entering into your actual eternal relationship with Radha Krishna, in this life, there is only one way for that to happen, that is from meeting them within your own being and your own mind. manasa vacasa drishtya grihyate 'nyair apindriyaih aham eva na matto 'nyad iti budhyadhvam anjasa Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts. (Srimad Bhagavatam 11.13.24) This is the quote from Srila Narayana Maharaja which I cited originally: The amount of knowledge covered by "divya-jnana, Krsna tattva and jiva tattva" is enormous. The gayatri mantra refers to madhurya rasa but it doesn't give much actual information. Anyone can have an actual personal relationship with Sri Radha Krishna without ever once chanting a gayatri mantra, and also you can chant the gayatri mantra for years on end and still be without an actual personal relationship with Sri Radha Krishna. The krpa of the guru is speech or writing from the guru for your benefit. The guru is a via medium for the Lord who is really the source and substance of that krpa from the guru. What is the nature of those words, that krpa? They have the power of giving the listener insight and awareness into transcendental knowledge and truth. The Lord is revealed through the words of the guru, that is the krpa of the guru. The guru is like a radio tuned into the frequency wherefrom the Lord is broadcasting. For most people they have no ability to understand the guru, their hearing ability is unable to comprehend the broadcasts from Vaikuntha. Due to good karma some people can understand the words of the guru and take to the path of bhakti. Gradually, for most, their ability to hear becomes better and better. At first they hear the guru without understanding where the words are coming from, they think the guru is smart or has done a lot of reading and hearing. As they progress they understand that the guru is a medium, a radio for tuning into God. From then on they don't really see the guru as being the person who is revealing or teaching knowledge. Instead they see the guru as vehicle for the Lord. Thats why we are told a bona fide spiritual master is considered to be non diferent from Sri Krishna. The mercy of the guru is the presence of the Lord manifesting by the Lord through the guru. For our benefit the Lord appears through the words of the guru, if our hearing is good we can hear the Lord speak.

I understood what GG Swami wrote, but it didn't answer the question I aksed of you. You said that the mantra is dependent on the mercy of a guru, Can you explain what that mercy is? No need to search for long quotes, just tell me what it means to you, that will suffice.

How about answering in your own words what you meant by: If you have that mercy please share your realization

Guest are you siddhanta from the previous post? If not please give yourself a name, if so please use your name. Using that quote in answering my question is like answering this question "What is your gift to me?" with "My gift is a great gift". But since I don't know who is who, I can't decide if the answer was from whom I asked or from someone else.