shiva

Jagat you wrote

Besides, this concept defies logic. How can one transcend awe and reverence through awe and reverence?

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

This is why Lakshmi can engage in tapasya for a long time without every getting Krishna in Vrindavan—even though that is supposedly what she wants. Why not? Because she is approaching with a vidhi mentality without following in the footsteps of the gopis. You can't get free of the chains by putting on more chains.

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

Now let us consider the question of bhange and pujala. If we hold like Govinda Maharaj and others that pUjala rAga-patha gaurava-bhaGge means "The devotees worshiped the raga path [in a mood of awe and reverence] until the [addiction to] vidhi breaks down," we will run into a number of problems, both lexical and syntactical.

 

The main problem is with bhaGge. In my opinion, this is a clear case of locative construction of time. In Bengali, I can put a verbal noun into the locative case and that gives the sense of "upon, when, as soon as (especially if I add the enclitic –i)." Bhanga is a verbal noun, i.e., "breaking," and therefore I have rendered it as "upon the breaking down of the attitude of gaurava."

 

Bhanga is not, as far as I know, used as a verb in Bengali, though Bengali poetry is flexible enough to allow such a usage. Generally, however, if you want to use a verb for "break" you would use the derivative tad-bhava form, bhAMge. Gaurava bhAMge would mean "vidhi breaks." But this does not make much syntactical sense here, as the previous verb usages are in the simple past tense. "They worshiped the raga path; vidhi breaks."

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

Certainly, the sadhakas of manjari bhava revere the mood of Srimati Radharani, but not in a spirit of distance or separation, but in the spirit of oneness with Radharani. This is the arrogance of the raganuga bhakta—he or she arrogates to him or herself a sense of identity with Radharani, "Radha is the vine and I AM THE PUSHPA, PALLAVA, PATA."

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.

 

CHAPTER II

AVIRODHA ADHYAYA

SECTION 2

Utpattyasambhavadhikaranam: Topic 8 (Sutras 42-45)

Refutation of the Bhagavata or the Pancharatra school

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" /><v:shapetype id=_x0000_t75 stroked="f" filled="f" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" o:preferrelative="t" o:spt="75" coordsize="21600,21600"><v:stroke joinstyle="miter"></v:stroke><v:formulas><v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"></v:f><v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"></v:f><v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"></v:f></v:formulas><v:path o:connecttype="rect" gradientshapeok="t" o:extrusionok="f"></v:path><o:lock aspectratio="t" v:ext="edit"></o:lock></v:shapetype><v:shape id=_x0000_i1025 style="WIDTH: 106.5pt; HEIGHT: 20.25pt" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/2.2.42.gif" src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>

Utpattyasambhavat II.2.42 (213)

 

On account of the impossibility of the origination (of the individual soul from the Highest Lord), (the doctrine of the Bhagavatas or the Pancharatra doctrine cannot be accepted).

Utpatti: causation, origination, creation; Asambhavat: on account of the impossibility.

The Pancharatra doctrine or the doctrine of the Bhagavatas is now refuted.

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.

According to this school, the Lord is the efficient cause as well as the material cause of the universe. This is in quite agreement with the scripture or the Sruti and so it is authoritative. A part of their system agrees with the Vedanta system. We accept this. Another part of the system, however, is open to objection.

The Bhagavatas say that Vaasudeva whose nature is pure knowledge is what really exists. He divides Himself fourfold and appears in four forms (Vyuhas) as Vaasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. Vaasudeva denotes the Supreme Self, Sankarshana the individual soul, Pradyumna the mind, and Aniruddha the principle of egoism, or Ahamkara. Of these four Vaasudeva constitutes the Ultimate Cause, of which the three others are the effects.

They say that by devotion for a long period to Vaasudeva through Abhigamana (going to the temple with devotion), Upadana (securing the accessories of worship). Ijya (oblation, worship), Svadhyaya (study of holy scripture and recitation of Mantras) and Yoga (devout meditation) we can pass beyond all afflictions, pains and sorrows, attain Liberation and reach the Supreme Being. We accept this doctrine.

But we controvert the doctrine that Sankarshana (the Jiva) is born from Vaasudeva and so on. Such creation is not possible. If there is such birth, if the soul be created it would be subject to destruction and hence there could be no Liberation. That the soul is not created will be shown in Sutra II.3. 17.

For this reason the Pancharatra doctrine is not acceptable.

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)

 

<v:shape id=_x0000_i1026 style="WIDTH: 119.25pt; HEIGHT: 21pt" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/2.2.43.gif" src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image002.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>

Na cha kartuh karanam II.2.43 (214)

 

And (it is) not (observed that) the instrument (is produced) from the agent.

Na: not; Cha: and; Kartuh: from the agent; Karanam: the instrument.

The argument against the Pancharatra doctrine is continued.

An instrument such as a hatchet and the like is not seen to be produced from the agent, the woodcutter. 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 mind is the instrument of the soul. Nowhere do we see the instrument being born from the doer. Nor can we accept that Ahamkara issues from the mind. This doctrine cannot be accepted. Such doctrine cannot be settled without observed instances. We do not meet with any scriptural passage in its favour. The scripture declares that everything takes its origin from Brahman.

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.

From Srimad Bhavagatam

 

3.26.23-24: The material ego springs up from the mahat-tattva, which evolved from the Lord's own energy. The material ego is endowed predominantly with active power of three kinds -- good, passionate and ignorant. It is from these three types of material ego that the mind, the senses of perception, the organs of action, and the gross elements evolve.

 

3.26.25: The threefold ahankara, the source of the gross elements, the senses and the mind, is identical with them because it is their cause. It is known by the name of Sankarshana, who is directly Lord Ananta with a thousand heads.

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.

From Srimad Bhagavatam

 

3.26.26: This false ego is characterized as the doer, as an instrument and as an effect. It is further characterized as serene, active or dull according to how it is influenced by the modes of goodness, passion and ignorance.

 

3.26.27: From the false ego of goodness, another transformation takes place. From this evolves the mind, whose thoughts and reflections give rise to desire.

 

3.26.28: The mind of the living entity is known by the name of Lord Aniruddha, the supreme ruler of the senses. He possesses a bluish-black form resembling a lotus flower growing in the autumn. He is found slowly by the yogis.

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.

 

<v:shape id=_x0000_i1027 style="WIDTH: 192pt; HEIGHT: 19.5pt" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/2.2.44.gif" src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image003.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>

Vijnanadibhave va tadapratishedhah II.2.44 (215)

 

Or if the (four Vyuhas are said to) possess infinite knowledge, etc., yet there is no denial of that (viz., the objection raised in Sutra 42).

Vijnanadibhave: if intelligence etc. exist; Va: or, on the other hand; Tat: that (Tasya iti); Apratishedhah: no denial (of). (Vijnana: knowledge; Adi: and the rest; Bhave: of the nature (of).)

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.

From Srimad Bhagavatam

 

10.40.21

 

namas te vasudevaya

namah sankarsanaya ca

pradyumnayaniruddhaya

satvatam pataye namah

 

Obeisances to You, Lord of the Satvatas, and to Your forms of Vasudeva, Sankarsana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha.

 

5.25.1

 

tasya mula-dese trimsad-yojana-sahasrantara aste ya vai kala bhagavatas tamasi samakhyatananta iti satvatiya drastr-drsyayoh sankarsanam aham ity abhimana-laksanam yam sankarsanam ity acaksate

 

Sri Sukadeva Gosvami said to Maharaja Pariksit: My dear King, approximately 240,000 miles beneath the planet Patala lives another incarnation of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is the expansion of Lord Visnu known as Lord Ananta or Lord Sankarsana. He is always in the transcendental position, but because He is worshiped by Lord Siva, the deity of tamo-guna or darkness, He is sometimes called tamasi. Lord Ananta is the predominating Deity of the material mode of ignorance as well as the false ego of all conditioned souls. When a conditioned living being thinks, "I am the enjoyer, and this world is meant to be enjoyed by me," this conception of life is dictated to him by Sankarsana. Thus the mundane conditioned soul thinks himself the Supreme Lord.

The argument against the Pancharatra doctrine is continued.

The error of the doctrine will persist even if they say that all the Vyuhas are Gods having intelligence, etc.

The Bhagavatas may say, that all the forms are Vaasudeva, the Lord, and that all of them equally possess Knowledge, Lordship, Strength, Power, etc., and are free from faults and imperfections.

In this case there will be more than one Isvara. This goes against your own doctrine according to which there is only one real essence, viz., the holy Vaasudeva. All the work can be done by only One Lord. Why should there be four Isvaras?

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.

Moreover, there could be no birth of one from another, because they are equal according to the Bhagavatas, whereas a cause is always greater than the effect. Observation shows that the relation of cause and effect requires some superiority on the part of the cause, as for instance, in the case of the clay and the pot, where the cause is more extensive than the effect and that without such superiority the relation is simply impossible. The Bhagavatas do not acknowledge any difference founded on superiority of knowledge, power, etc., between Vaasudeva and the other Lords, but simply say that they are all forms of Vaasudeva without any special distinction.

Then again, the forms of Vaasudeva cannot be limited to four only, as the whole world from Brahma down to a blade of grass is a form or manifestation of the Supreme Being. The whole world is the Vyuha of Vaasudeva.

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.

 

<v:shape id=_x0000_i1028 style="WIDTH: 92.25pt; HEIGHT: 18.75pt" alt="" type="#_x0000_t75"><v:imagedata o:href="http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_2/2.2.45.gif" src="file:///C:/WINDOWS/TEMP/msoclip1/01/clip_image004.gif"></v:imagedata></v:shape>

Vipratishedhacca II.2.45 (216)

 

And because of contradictions (the Pancharatra doctrine is untenable).

Vipratishedhat: because of contradiction; Cha:and.

The argument against the doctrine of the Bhagavatas is concluded here.

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 also other inconsistencies, or manifold contradictions in the Pancharatra doctrine. Jnana, Aisvarya, or ruling capacity, Sakti (creative power), Bala (strength), Virya (valour) and Tejas (glory) are enumerated as qualities and they are again in some other place spoken of as selfs, holy Vaasudevas and so on. It says that Vaasudeva is different from Sankarshana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha. Yet it says that these are the same as Vaasudeva. Sometimes it speaks of the four forms as qualities of the Atman and sometimes as the Atman itself.

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.

Further we meet with passages contradictory to the Vedas. It contains words of depreciation of the Vedas. It says that Sandilya got the Pancharatra doctrine after finding that the Vedas did not contain the means of perfection. Not having found the highest bliss in the Vedas, Sandilya studied this Sastra.

For this reason also the Bhagavata doctrine cannot be accepted. As this system is opposed to and condemned by all the Srutis and abhored by the wise, it is not worthy of regard.

Thus in this Pada has been shown that the paths of Sankhyas, Vaiseshikas and the rest down to the Pancharatra doctrine are strewn with thorns and are full of difficulties, while the path of Vedanta is free from all these defects and should be trodden by every one who wishes his final beatitude and salvation.

Thus ends the Second Pada (Section 2) of the Second Adhyaya (Chapter II) of the Brahmasutras or the Vedanta Philosophy.

So above quotes from "Brahma-sutras" refute Bhagavatha view . Can some vaishnavas explain why is it so ?

Hare Krishna

Om Namo Venkatesha

 

 

 

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.

So above quotes from "Brahma-sutras" refute Bhagavatha view . Can some vaishnavas explain why is it so ?

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.

Of course, five forms of Lord Narayana are : Aniruddha, Prathyumna, Sangarsana, Vasudeva & Narayana.

 

My doubt is : why Vishnu is referred as just one of Adityas in four vedas ? Also in Bhagavath Gita, Lord Krishna says that " Among Adityas, I am Vishnu" . It is said that there are twelve Adityas and Lord Visnu is youngest among them. So Vishnu referred just as a Aditya in Vedas & Gita is disturbing me. Please reply to this.

 

If Vishnu is one of the Adithya, then how Vaishnavas equating Vishnu & Lord Narayana as One ?

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:

I was drying up, I was not energetic, and happy to do service anymore.

What was wrong with, I chanted my rounds, did service the whole package.

But still I felt like something was missing in my life..

 

So finally at the age of 18 I met a guru,

who was very diffrent to other guru's. With all do respect! I never saw him, or listend to his lectures before.. When I went back home I was so energetic so alive.. I had not felt like this in ages. I told my mum I met my guru.

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:

The Sixty-four Limbs of Bhajana

 

Srî Bindu-vikrisinî-vrtti

 

(1) Srî-guru-padrisraya

 

Taking shelter at the lotus feet of Srî Guru

 

In all the scriptures that promote bhakti the unlimited

glories of Srî Guru have been described. Without taking shelter at

the lotus feet of a sad-guru it is impossible to enter into the realm

of bhagavad-bhajana. Therefore, out of all the limbs ofbhakti, sad-

guru-padrisraya has been cited first. It is the duty of all faithful

persons who have a desire for bhagavad-bhakti to take shelter at

the lotus feet of a spiritual master who is a genuine preceptor of the

sristras expounding the glories of Bhagavrin and who is expert in

understanding and explaining the mantras describing Bhagavan.

All anarthas are easily removed only by the mercy of such a

genuine spiritual master and thus one also obtains the supreme

favour of Bhagavan. By the mercy of Srî Guru all anarthas are

easily destroyed. Srîla Jîva Gosvrimî has demonstrated this in his

Bhakti-sandarbha (Anuccheda 237) by citing the evidence of

various sastras. He has explained this by the statement of Brahmrijî

as well:

 

yo mantrah sa guruh saksat

yo guruh sa harih svayam

gurur yasya bhavet tustas

tasya tusto harih svayam

 

The mantra (which is given by the guru) is itself the guru, and the

guru is directly the Supreme Lord Hari. He upon whom the

spiritual master is pleased also obtains the pleasure of Srî Hari

Himself.

 

Comment

 

 

The guru’s internal, spiritual mood of service to Srî Radhika and

Krsna is conveyed to the disciple through the medium of a mantra.

 

Everything is given in seed form within the mantra. At first the

disciple will not be able to understand, but by performing sadhana

and bhajana under the guidance of Srî Gurudeva and by meditating

on the mantra given by him, gradually everything will be revealed.

Therefore it is said here that the mantra is the direct representa-

tion of Srî Gurudeva...

Then the commentary continues for that verse. After that first verse comes 63 more like this:

(2) Sri-krsna-diksa-siksadi

Receiving initiation and spiritual instructions

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:

Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura has clearly said that those persons who have abandoned the pursuits of karma-yoga, jnan yoga, japa, tapa, and othe processes of sadhana, who have accepted Bhagavan as their istadeva and who are engaged in sravana,kirtanam and smarna of bhagvan-nama, but who have not accepted diksa from a Vaisnava guru according to the Vaisnava regulations, cannot attain the Supreme Lord. They will merely be prevented from entering hell, or in their next birth, by the influence of the bhajana performed from the previous life, they will obtain sadhu-sanga. By then taking shelter at the lotus feet of a guru, receiving diksa from him and making advancement through the different stages of bhakti, they can attain the Supreme Lord.

That seemed to be the commentary on this verse cited above:

(2) Sri-krsna-diksa-siksadi

Receiving initiation and spiritual instructions

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.

The links on the list are hot. Kindly point out to me the unequivocal statements from anyone on this list that discourage anyone from following the first two angas of bhakti, as Srila Rupa Gosvami gave them. "need not necessarily" doesn't apply to conditioned souls in general, ony to liberated souls. Srila Sridhar Maharaja by his example both accepted and gave diksa mantras. Are you against anyone following his example?

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:

Similarly, the Ramarcana-candrika states:

 

vinaiva diksam viprendra purascaryam vinaiva hi

vinaiva nyasa-vidhina japa-matrena siddhi-da

 

"O best of the brahmanas, even without initiation, preliminary purification or acceptance of the renounced order, one can attain perfection in devotional service simply by chanting the Lord's holy name."

 

In other words, the chanting of the Hare Krsna maha-mantra is so powerful that it does not depend on official initiation, but if one is initiated and engages in pancaratra-vidhi (Deity worship), his Krsna consciousness will awaken very soon, and his identification with the material world will be vanquished. The more one is freed from material identification, the more one can realize that the spirit soul is qualitatively as good as the Supreme Soul. At such a time, when one is situated on the absolute platform, one can understand that the holy name of the Lord and the Lord Himself are identical. At that stage of realization, the holy name of the Lord, the Hare Krsna mantra, cannot be identified with any material sound. If one accepts the Hare Krsna maha-mantra as a material vibration, he falls down. One should worship and chant the holy name of the Lord by accepting it as the Lord Himself. One should therefore be initiated properly according to revealed scriptures under the direction of a bona fide spiritual master. Although chanting the holy name is good for both the conditioned and liberated soul, it is especially beneficial to the conditioned soul because by chanting it one is liberated. When a person who chants the holy name is liberated, he attains the ultimate perfection by returning home, back to Godhead. In the words of Sri Caitanya-caritamrta (Adi 7.73):

 

krsna-mantra haite habe samsara-mocana

krsna-nama haite pabe krsnera carana

 

"Simply by chanting the holy name of Krsna one can obtain freedom from material existence. Indeed, simply by chanting the Hare Krsna mantra one will be able to see the lotus feet of the Lord."

 

The offenseless chanting of the holy name does not depend on the initiation process. Although initiation may depend on purascarya or purascarana, the actual chanting of the holy name does not depend on purascarya-vidhi, or the regulative principles. If one chants the holy name even once without committing an offense, he attains all success. During the chanting of the holy name, the tongue must work. Simply by chanting the holy name, one is immediately delivered. The tongue is sevonmukha-jihva -- it is controlled by service. One whose tongue is engaged in tasting material things and also talking about them cannot use the tongue for absolute realization.

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

diksa-kale bhakta kare atma-samarpana

sei-kale krsna tare kare atma-sama

 

At the time of initiation, when a devotee fully surrenders unto the service of the Lord, Krsna accepts him to be as good as Himself.

 

sei deha kare tara cid-ananda-maya

aprakrta-dehe tanra carana bhajaya

 

When the devotee's body is thus transformed into spiritual existence, the devotee, in that transcendental body, renders service to the lotus feet of the Lord.

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.

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.

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:

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Yes, I shall describe to you the principles of devotion to Me, by executing which a mortal human being will conquer unconquerable death.

 

Always remembering Me, one should perform all his duties for Me without becoming impetuous. With mind and intelligence offered to Me, one should fix his mind in attraction to My devotional service.

 

One should take shelter of holy places where My saintly devotees reside, and one should be guided by the exemplary activities of My devotees, who appear among the demigods, demons and human beings.

 

Either alone or in public gatherings, with singing, dancing and other exhibitions of royal opulence, one should arrange to celebrate those holy days, ceremonies and festivals set aside specially for My worship.

 

With a pure heart one should see Me, the Supreme Soul within all beings and also within oneself, to be both unblemished by anything material and also present everywhere, both externally and internally, just like the omnipresent sky.

 

O brilliant Uddhava, one who thus views all living entities with the idea that I am present within each of them, and who by taking shelter of this divine knowledge offers due respect to everyone, is considered actually wise. Such a man sees equally the brahmana and the outcaste, the thief and the charitable promoter of brahminical culture, the sun and the tiny sparks of fire, the gentle and the cruel.

 

For him who constantly meditates upon My presence within all persons, the bad tendencies of rivalry, envy and abusiveness, along with false ego, are very quickly destroyed.

 

Disregarding the ridicule of one's companions, one should give up the bodily conception and its accompanying embarrassment. One should offer obeisances before all -- even the dogs, outcastes, cows and asses -- falling flat upon the ground like a rod.

 

Until one has fully developed the ability to see Me within all living beings, one must continue to worship Me by this process with the activities of his speech, mind and body.

 

By such transcendental knowledge of the all-pervading Personality of Godhead, one is able to see the Absolute Truth everywhere. Freed thus from all doubts, one gives up fruitive activities.

 

Indeed, I consider this process -- using one's mind, words and bodily functions for realizing Me within all living beings -- to be the best possible method of spiritual enlightenment.

 

My dear Uddhava, because I have personally established it, this process of devotional service unto Me is transcendental and free from any material motivation. Certainly a devotee never suffers even the slightest loss by adopting this process.

 

O Uddhava, greatest of saints, in a dangerous situation an ordinary person cries, becomes fearful and laments, although such useless emotions do not change the situation. But activities offered to Me without personal motivation, even if they are externally useless, amount to the actual process of religion.

 

This process is the supreme intelligence of the intelligent and the cleverness of the most clever, for by following it one can in this very life make use of the temporary and unreal to achieve Me, the eternal reality.

 

Thus have I related to you -- both in brief and in detail -- a complete survey of the science of the Absolute Truth. Even for the demigods, this science is very difficult to comprehend.

 

I have repeatedly spoken this knowledge to you with clear reasoning. Anyone who properly understands it will become free from all doubts and attain liberation.

 

Anyone who fixes his attention on these clear answers to your questions will attain to the eternal, confidential goal of the Vedas -- the Supreme Absolute Truth.

 

One who liberally disseminates this knowledge among My devotees is the bestower of the Absolute Truth, and to him I give My very own self.

 

He who loudly recites this supreme knowledge, which is the most lucid and purifying, becomes purified day by day, for he reveals Me to others with the lamp of transcendental knowledge.

 

Anyone who regularly listens to this knowledge with faith and attention, all the while engaging in My pure devotional service, will never become bound by the reactions of material work.

 

My dear friend Uddhava, have you now completely understood this transcendental knowledge? Are the confusion and lamentation that arose in your mind now dispelled?

 

You should not share this instruction with anyone who is hypocritical, atheistic or dishonest, or with anyone who will not listen faithfully, who is not a devotee, or who is simply not humble.

 

This knowledge should be taught to one who is free from these bad qualities, who is dedicated to the welfare of the brahmanas, and who is kindly disposed, saintly and pure. And if common workers and women are found to have devotion for the Supreme Lord, they are also to be accepted as qualified hearers.

 

When an inquisitive person comes to understand this knowledge, he has nothing further to know. After all, one who has drunk the most palatable nectar cannot remain thirsty.

 

Through analytic knowledge, ritualistic work, mystic yoga, mundane business and political rule, people seek to advance in religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and liberation. But because you are My devotee, whatever men can accomplish in these multifarious ways you will very easily find within Me.

 

A person who gives up all fruitive activities and offers himself entirely unto Me, eagerly desiring to render service unto Me, achieves liberation from birth and death and is promoted to the status of sharing My own opulences.

 

Sukadeva Gosvami said: Hearing these words spoken by Lord Krsna, and having thus been shown the entire path of yoga, Uddhava folded his hands to offer obeisances. But his throat choked up with love and his eyes overflowed with tears; so he could say nothing.

 

Steadying his mind, which had become overwhelmed with love, Uddhava felt extremely grateful to Lord Krsna, the greatest hero of the Yadu dynasty. My dear King Pariksit, Uddhava bowed down to touch the Lord's lotus feet with his head and then spoke with folded hands.

 

Sri Uddhava said: O unborn, primeval Lord, although I had fallen into the great darkness of illusion, my ignorance has now been dispelled by Your merciful association. Indeed, how can cold, darkness and fear exert their power over one who has approached the brilliant sun?

 

In return for my insignificant surrender, You have mercifully bestowed upon me, Your servant, the torchlight of transcendental knowledge. Therefore, what devotee of Yours who has any gratitude could ever give up Your lotus feet and take shelter of another master?

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

Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge. (break) ...knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing.

(Interview, 16/10/76, Chandigarh)

 

Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real initiation. My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination, that is initiation.

(BTG, Search for the Divine)

 

"...Regarding the disciplic succession coming from Arjuna, disciplic

succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated

officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic

conclusion."

 

(letter to dinesh 1969 by A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami)

From Jiva Goswami

The answer is that although it is correct that one who fully engages in chanting the holy name need not depend upon the process of initiation, generally a devotee is addicted to many abominable material habits due to material contamination from his previous life. In order to get quick relief from all these contaminations, it is required that one engage in the worship of the Lord in the temple. The worship of the Deity in the temple is essential to reduce one's restlessness due to the contaminations of conditional life. Thus Narada in his pancaratriki vidhi, and other great sages have sometimes stressed that since every conditioned soul has a bodily concept of life aimed at sense enjoyment the rules and regulations for worshipping the Deity in the temple are essential.

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'.

Even for Vaisnavas who are duly initiated into the genuine sampradaya the vastu-prabha., or illumination of one’s eternal identity arising from their diksa.-mantra which they received from their diksa-guru, won’t appear until they receive this svarupa-jnana by the mercy of a siksa-guru. Due to ignorance of svarupa-jnana, svarupa-siddha.-bhakti remains covered and hence only bhakti-abhasa is visible.

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.

Q: I have been told that "Bhaktivinoda Thakura states in Bhakti-tattva-viveka that unless a person receives svarupa-jnana (knowledge of one's spiritual identity/siddha-deha) from a siksa-guru, even though he is initiated in the sampradaya, realization of his eternal identity arising from his diksa mantra will not appear, and that his bhakti is only a shadow of real devotion." I did not receive this svarupa-jnana from my guru and others are encouraging me to go elsewhere to receive it from their guru. I trust your understanding and would like to have your advice on this subject.

 

A: Those who have told you this have misunderstood the instructions of Bhaktivinoda Thakura in Bhakti-tattva-viveka. I have read an English edition of the book in which this section is poorly translated and lends to misunderstanding. In the section of the book under discussion, Bhaktivinoda Thakura delineates what he calls bhakti-abhasa, a shadow of suddha-bhakti.

 

His discussion is based on the third chapter of the first wave of Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. After describing various types of persons such as impersonalists, pancopasakas, etc. who are involved in only a reflection (pratibimba) or shadow (chaya) of suddha-bhakti, Sri Bhaktivinoda describes another type of practitioner whose bhakti is only a shadow of suddha-bhakti. He calls this type of devotee a sampradayika Vaisnava, or one who is initiated into the Gaudiya sampradaya yet is without what Bhaktivinoda Thakura calls svarupa-jnana. 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. The point he is making is that if one is properly initiated but does not receive instructions (siksa) from a qualified person regarding the nature of the true practitioner, the practice, and the goal, his initiation will not in and of itself bring about the desired result. At the time this book was written, it was common for persons to receive initiation but no instruction on tattva.

 

Immediately following the section cited in your question, Bhaktivinoda Thakura further explains his point thus: "The firm faith of the sampradayika (properly initiated) Vaisnava in the personhood of God is much stronger than that of the pancopasaka Vaisnavas. By receiving proper instruction on tattva, a properly initiated Vaisnava remains hopeful of reaching the high stage of unalloyed Vaisnavism (suddha-bhakti)." Thus it is important that we receive instructions on the nature of what we are initiated into from a qualified person. Proper diksa combined with this kind of siksa will enable us to realize our spiritual identity over time as we cultivate the ideal of pure devotion.

 

Q: In your answer regarding Bhakti-tattva-viveka you wrote: "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". So are you saying here that experience of one's siddha-deha or spiritual identity in Krsna-lila is not imparted to the disciple through some type of initiation by a siksa- or diksa-guru as is done by some in the babaji section of Gaudiya Vaisnavism?

 

A: It is not wrong to tell one's disciple the nature of his svarupa and give instructions as to how to cultivate it in bhajana. However, this practice has been so abused that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura did not stress it, nor was he instructed in this matter by Bhaktivinoda Thakura or Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji. Babaji Maharaja told him that he would realize his svarupa in the syllables of the Hare Krsna maha mantra.

 

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura taught that one's svarupa can be realized through bhajana even without being specifically told of one's paticular spiritual identity. The guru must give the mantra and impart knowledge of its significance. Within the mantra specific knowledge of one's relationship with Krsna is present, and it will arise as realized knowledge beginning with the stage of ruci, as ruci forms the basis of this identity of spiritual taste and feeling.

 

As I mentioned in my booklet Sri Guru-paramapara, even Nitai dasa, who is a strong advocate of practicing the siddha-pranali system and is outside of the line of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, acknowledges that one's svarupa can be realized through spiritual culture without being instructed about one's svarupa beforehand. Prabhupada did not receive what is sometimes called siddha-pranali diksa from Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura, nor did Srila Sridhara Maharaja.

 

As I have quoted before, the following instructions of Bhaktivinoda Thakura are relevant to the discussion. He clearly explains that experience of one's internal spiritual form (svarupa) required for the culture of raganuga-bhakti proper is revealed by the grace of Krsna-nama:

 

isat vikasi punah dekhaya nija rupa guna

citta hari laya krsna pasa

purna vikasita hana vraje more jaya lana

dekhaya nija svarupa vilasa

 

"When the name is even slightly revealed it shows me my own spiritual form and characteristics. It steals my mind and takes it to Krsna's side. When the name is fully revealed, it takes me directly to Vraja, where it shows me my personal role in the eternal pastimes."

 

Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura emphasized this instruction and the overall efficacy of kirtana. We should follow his lead. Persons interested in this should read my booklet Sri Guru-Parampara.

 

What I am saying in the answer above is relevant to the section in Bhakti-tattva-viveka. Again, it does not imply that a qualified guru never reveals the nature of one's svarupa through explicit instructions before the disciple realizes it. However, again with emphasis, this is not the common practice in the Gaudiya Saraswata sampradaya, nor is it the topic under discussion in this section of Bhakti-tattva-viveka.

He made a mistake, it should be anuccheda 283

http://www.harekrsna.com/philosophy/gss/sastra/literature/gosvamis/jiva/bhakti/bhakti10.doc

Some are saying divya-jnan comes from Gayatri. Ok I accept that because the Name is present in the gayatri. But the point is the potency of the gayatri is due to the prence of the Holy Name and not that the potency is due to the rest of the gayatri apart from the Name. This is what I hear Srila Sridhar Maharaja saying. The Holy Name does not lose potency when chanted apart from the gayatri as in the Maha mantra. The Holy name is the active ingredient.

Now if the Holy Name can give Divya-jnan from within the gayatri why could it not give divya-jnan as the Maha-mantra?

What is divya-jnana in this context? Jiva Goswami explains:

The words "divyam jnanam" (transcendental knowledge) here refers to the descriptions of the Lord's transcendental form in sacred mantras. Chanting those mantras establishes a relationship with the Supreme Lord. This is explained in the Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda's description of the eight-syllable mantra. Thus for wealthy householders the path of Deity worship is most important.

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:

Although in the opinion of Srimad-Bhagavatam the path of worshipping the Deity, as it is described in the Pancaratras and other scriptures, is not compulsory, and without engaging in Deity worship one may attain the final goal of life by engaging in even only one of the nine processes of devotional service, processes that begin with surrender, nevertheless, in the opinion of they who follow the path of Narada Muni and other great sages, by accepting initiation from a bona fide spiritual master one attains a relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, a relationship established through the feet of one's spiritual master, and when one is thus initiated, the process of Deity worship is compulsory...

 

...To chant the holy name of the Lord one need not depend upon other paraphernalia, for one can immediately get all the desired results of connecting or linking with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It may therefore be questioned why there is a necessity for further spiritual activities in devotional service for one who engages in the chanting of the holy name of the Lord.

 

The answer is that although it is correct that one who fully engages in chanting the holy name need not depend upon the process of initiation, generally a devotee is addicted to many abominable material habits due to material contamination from his previous life. In order to get quick relief from all these contaminations, it is required that one engage in the worship of the Lord in the temple. The worship of the Deity in the temple is essential to reduce one's restlessness due to the contaminations of conditional life. Thus Narada in his pancaratriki vidhi, and other great sages have sometimes stressed that since every conditioned soul has a bodily concept of life aimed at sense enjoyment the rules and regulations for worshipping the Deity in the temple are essential.

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.”

Another point I would like to learn about is how is it Jiva Gosvami can say "irregardless of what the scriptures say" and then postulate the opposite as the truth? Where does that leave the sciptures or Jiva Gosvami in the eyes of the devotees? How is that reconcilable without misleading word jugglery?

Something is off.

 

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

I think I understand Theist and Shiva a little, and from what I understand they are not saying that they don't believe people should take initiation, but rather that they themselves haven't found anyone (since the departure of Srila AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad) who they fell they can fully have faith in.

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.

Now will be considered worship of the Lord (arcana), which begins with the invitation (avahana) to the Lord to appear. If one has faith in the path of worship, one should take shelter of a bona fide spiritual master and ask questions of him. This is described in these words of Srimad Bhagavatam (11.3.48):

 

"Having obtained the mercy of his spiritual master, who reveals to the disciple the injunctions of Vedic scriptures, the devotee should worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the particular personal form of the Lord the devotee finds most attractive."

 

Although in the opinion of Srimad-Bhagavatam the path of worshipping the Deity, as it is described in the Pancaratras and other scriptures, is not compulsory, and without engaging in Deity worship one may attain the final goal of life by engaging in even only one of the nine processes of devotional service, processes that begin with surrender, nevertheless, in the opinion of they who follow the path of Narada Muni and other great sages, by accepting initiation from a bona fide spiritual master one attains a relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, a relationship established through the feet of one's spiritual master, and when one is thus initiated, the process of Deity worship is compulsory.

 

Therefore in the Agama-sastra it is said:

 

"Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures know this process as diksa.*

 

"It is the duty of every human being to surrender to a bona fide spiritual master. Giving him everything: body, mind and intelligence, one must take a Vaisnava initiation from him."*

 

The words "divyam jnanam" (transcendental knowledge) here refers to the descriptions of the Lord's transcendental form in sacred mantras. Chanting those mantras establishes a relationship with the Supreme Lord. This is explained in the Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda's description of the eight-syllable mantra. Thus for wealthy householders the path of Deity worship is most important.

 

The sages tell Maharaja Vasudeva (Srimad Bhagavatam 10.84.37):

 

"This is the most auspicious path of progress for a religious householder of the twice-born orders: to faithfully worship the Personality of Godhead with his uncontaminated possessions which have been acquired by just means"....

 

....To chant the holy name of the Lord one need not depend upon other paraphernalia, for one can immediately get all the desired results of connecting or linking with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It may therefore be questioned why there is a necessity for further spiritual activities in devotional service for one who engages in the chanting of the holy name of the Lord.

 

The answer is that although it is correct that one who fully engages in chanting the holy name need not depend upon the process of initiation, generally a devotee is addicted to many abominable material habits due to material contamination from his previous life. In order to get quick relief from all these contaminations, it is required that one engage in the worship of the Lord in the temple. The worship of the Deity in the temple is essential to reduce one's restlessness due to the contaminations of conditional life. Thus Narada in his pancaratriki vidhi, and other great sages have sometimes stressed that since every conditioned soul has a bodily concept of life aimed at sense enjoyment the rules and regulations for worshipping the Deity in the temple are essential.

 

In the Ramarcana-candrika it is said of Lord Ramacandra:

 

"Among Vaisnava-mantras, the Rama-mantra is the best. The Rama-mantra is millions and millions of times more effective than Ganesa-mantras or mantras for the other demigods.

 

O king of brahmanas, even if one is not initiated and has not performed either purascarya of nyasa, he can attain perfection simply by chanting the Rama-mantra."

 

 

From Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu Madhya 24.331:

diksha-purascarya-vidhi apeksha 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.

From Srila Prabhupada purport Madhya 15.108:

In the words of Sri Caitanya-caritamrta (Adi 7.73):

 

krsna-mantra haite habe samsara-mocana

krsna-nama haite pabe krsnera carana

 

"Simply by chanting the holy name of Krsna one can obtain freedom from material existence. Indeed, simply by chanting the Hare Krsna mantra one will be able to see the lotus feet of the Lord."

 

The offenseless chanting of the holy name does not depend on the initiation process. Although initiation may depend on purascarya or purascarana, the actual chanting of the holy name does not depend on purascarya-vidhi, or the regulative principles. If one chants the holy name even once without committing an offense, he attains all success. During the chanting of the holy name, the tongue must work. Simply by chanting the holy name, one is immediately delivered. The tongue is sevonmukha-jihva -- it is controlled by service. One whose tongue is engaged in tasting material things and also talking about them cannot use the tongue for absolute realization.

Puru Das/Siddhanta you quoted this from Srila Narayana Maharaja:

The offenseless chanting of the holy name does not depend on the initiation process. But that name must be the pure name, and how will it become so? It can only become pure through that diksa process; otherwise it is not possible.

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 was reading at a website of an ex iskcon guy from back in the 60's recently. While he was in India he became involved with other traditions within the Chaitanya school. He concluded that the power of a mantra is only present when it is received within a chain of gurus, anyone outside that chain who doesn't receive the mantra from that succession is receiving a dead mantra.

 

In other words he claims, as I guess many others do outside of the Gaudiya school, that if you attempt to connect to God through a mantra, God will not respond to that endeavor unless you received that mantra from baba booie such and such, who in turn received it from his guru baba louie and on and on.

 

In this conception we have the power of the mantra not within the control of God, but rather within the control of humans. In effect they are saying God is subordinate to the mantra, and more importantly, God's potency is subordinate to them. In this conception the mantra is not effective unless touched and transmitted by humans. Therefore the mantra cannot have power in and of itself. God is forbidden from empowering the mantra. He is locked out by the human chain of command.

 

In this way they have fashioned a theory of disciplic succession which conveniently leaves out all those who are not submitting to them as being keepers of the secret, as being fakes.

 

This is their central argument, if you are not connected to them, then your mantra is ineffective due to God having his hands tied, God needs a permission slip from some mantra wallah in Calcutta or Radha Kunda.

 

In various discussions from various schools of thought we often hear of the concept of the necessity of receiving the gayatri mantras from a preceptor in a lineage of mahants in order to delve into or receive the proper result desired, i.e such and such rasa.

 

Is this really the case? Is a person's rasa with Radha Krishna dependent on receiving a specific mantra in a specific way from a specific person?

 

My understanding is that the mantra is a tool for meditation. The revelations do not come from the mantra itself. By that I mean that Bhagavan is the revelator, independent of any rules concerning mantras. Bhagavan is revealing knowledge or not, with a specific mantra or without. Any mantra is subordinate to Bhagavan. And therefore a mantra is empty words unless Bhagavan participates in the mantra. No chain of command or person has the ability to empower a mantra. The empowerment of a mantra is not like a magical incantation, rather it is the Lord manifesting knowledge or experience to the sadhaka by divine choice, regardless of any other consideration.

 

The concept of the necessity of specific mantras from specific sources to realize a desired goal negates the role of the divine will. The divine will is made subordinate to a formulaic method of revelation, a magical incantation. By that I mean the divine will is the only thing which can reveal or hide desired jnana or experience. The formulaic idea is the same as that of the magical incantation which puts the power of the mantra squarely in the hands of the chanter. He will receive the desired goal if he follows the methodology given and will not receive the desired goal without that carefully followed methodology.

 

This is the magical or alchemical or kabbalistic approach to the divine. The belief that the divine will can be controlled by our actions or inactions is the essence of the magical, mystic alchemical path. Which posits our ability to control our own destiny based on our manipulation of words or concepts within our mind.

 

My understanding is that all revelation is divine providence. Regardless of any attempt utilizing mantra or tantra or any other esoteric tool. The reality is that we exist under the autocratic rule of the divine will and desire. In this concept any mantra or sadhana is essentially unnecessary if the divine will desires, or conversely, absolutely necessary if the divine will desires. The basic premise is that there are no absolute rules for revelation. Revelation is independent of all forms or systems utilizing the ascending process prescribed in any methodology from any school of mysticism or religion.

 

Of course there are those who will insist that the mantra is non different from the divine. With them I differ. The mantra is a tool of the divine, but the divine is not subordinate to the mantra. Just like if you insist that the mantra must be empowered by a guru, I also will insist that the mantra is not empowered itself but rather it is the divine will that is the relevant potency. Being an autocrat and supremely independent the divine will can do as it likes and all formulas are subordinate to this conception.

 

My understanding is that the empowered mantra is non different from Bhagavan if it is the desire of of the divine. It is the divine will which is the actual potency and revealer of all truths and all reality of whatever type. The mantra is not to be understood as a separate principle having a separate potency from the divine potency it represents.

 

We shouldn't think of any mantra as being the actual potent factor, that would leave the Personality of Godhead as a subordinate potency to the mantra. The mantra is potent only due to the Personality of Godhead manifesting to the chanter, without that, the mantra is no different then any other words.

 

The mantra is not empowered by a line of succession. It is not empowered by humans. A mantra is effective if the supreme will desires, and it is not effective likewise. The mantra itself is nothing without the divine will, a humans touch is irrelevant.

 

Whenever sastra advises taking the mantra from a bona fide guru, it is not the mantra itself that is being empowered by that guru. Rather it is the conception, the teaching that the guru imparts that is important. The mantra will be effective or not regardless of it's source. But what is important is the philosophical teaching that the guru provides along with the mantra. In this way the sadhaka is given a mantra that is invested with potency due to the the context it is given in.

 

In this concept a person need not take the mantra in a formal initiation from a specific lineage of unbroken succession in order for the mantra to be effective. Anyone can read or hear the proper teachings of the mantra and the associated philosophy and the mantra will be effective. The potency is not in the line of succession itself. The potency is the divine will helped along by the associated jnana or philosophy.

 

There are those who want to be the gatekeepers of the higher reality and they will use the methodology of the occult master i.e. "I have the secret whatever and it is here in this mantra or spell, and it is only effective if it comes from me or my lineage, directly handed to you".

 

There are many non Gaudiya Caitanya Saraswat vaisnavas who believe exactly these concepts. They criticize and belittle all and anyone who is not receiving mantras from them. They teach that without their touch, the mantras have zero potency. As silly as this is, it has attracted more then a few people away from the Gaudiya Saraswat tradition.

Believe what you will. The words of our acaryas speak for themselves, and their evaluations of what the brahma gayatri and kama gayatri and other mantras mean, accomplish and what ersults they yield have more weight than your intellectualization of the topic. BTW under whose guidance do you practice KC?

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.

The only way I can explain krpa is that such mercy is measured in your own heart by how much you have become attached to chanting the maha mantra, associating with sadhus, exchanging with other devotees according to Srila Rupa Gosvami's guidelines,and rendering devotional service accompanied by devotional practices. Jnana is one thing and vijnana another.

Sorry I can't continue our exchange, but I am pressed for time and have to cook in preparation for a nama hatta program here tonight.

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:

You inquired how any mantra can yield the fruit of genuine transcendental realization. This cannot be discussed without a clear understanding of the mercy of the diksa and siksa gurus. Their krpa has everything to do with the effectiveness of chanting the sampradaya gayatri mantras,

First off I didn't "inquire how any mantra can yield the fruit of genuine transcendental realization". What I wrote was this:

It appears that the knowledge that the mantra gives is limited, it is an introduction to the highest truth. A mantra of 24 syllables is limited in the amount of knowledge it can give. The words of the Kama Gayatri point one towards madhurya rasa, by hearing that mantra Brahma became awakened towards the ultimate truth of the Vedas final conclusion. In order for one to become well acquainted with the highest truth there must be a much deeper level of self realization and acquisition of knowledge.

 

So I still have to wonder how a mantra can give:

 

"all kinds of divya-jnana, transcendental knowledge, including the knowledge of krsna-tattva and jiva-tattva, and it also gives a relationship with Krsna"

 

It would appear to me that the amount of divya jnana mentioned above seems to be something which is not given by any mantra. Brahma had to search within himself for some time to become well acquainted with the ocean of truth after reception of the gayatri. We are similar to Brahma in that although a mantra can awaken us to the highest truth to some degree, it will take searching within to have the highest truth revealed to us.

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 gayatri-mantra gives all kinds of divya-jnana, transcendental knowledge, including the knowledge of krsna-tattva and jiva-tattva, and it also gives a relationship with Krsna

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:

This cannot be discussed without a clear understanding of the mercy of the diksa and siksa gurus. Their krpa has everything to do with the effectiveness of chanting

If you have that mercy please share your realization

Krpa means mercy.

 

"Laghu" means material things. You are associating with material poets, material politicians, material wealthy persons and material learned persons. They are laghus. When you associate with a sadhu and get his krpa then automatically the taste will be bitter and you will no longer like to associate with laghus. You should associate with a real sadhu. Sadhu-krpa, the mercy of a sadhu, is powerful. It is a most important thing. It is said, vaisnava-krpaya tara sarva-siddhi --- If you can get the mercy of a vaisnava sadhu then you will achieve all perfection. Moreover, it must be with a real sadhu, a sadhu in the true sense of the term. Not a hypocrite or bogus sadhu or kali-cela! They are only posing like sadhu. If a genuine sadhu cast his merciful glance on you, then you have it! Sadhu-sanga is most important, most important, most important. One should develop greed for such a type of sadhu-sanga. Don't resist such greed. You are greedy for material accumulations. That is your enemy. That will lead you to hell. Now become greedy for this, to have such sadhu-sanga. "How can I get it, how can I get it?" Develop this greed. It should not be resisted. It is the only thing needed."

 

Srila Gour Govinda Maharaja

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.