Rati

Jagat earlier mentioned neophyte behavior. There is one tendency that tends to get overlooked - that of wanting to be the big preacher and deriving some satisfaction from that activity. The difference(between the neophyte and the uttama platform) is one of motivation, which is undoubtedly going to be tinged with any of a plethora of ulterior motives for the novice. My suggestion is that one who is not yet ready to speak knowledgeably that they restrict their preaching activities to handing out plates of kRSNA-prasAda and deferring to senior Vaishnavas on matters of siddhAnta. There is no loss of face by just honestly admitting that one is a beginner and not having all of the answers to questions, for one will be respected for that simple quality of truthfullness. Heck, we're all pretty much beginners when it comes to Gaudiya Vaishnavism. However, there are some that have hit the books in a serious way and have many years of intense practice behind them. A little etiquette goes a long way. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-10-2002).]

Shiva: Aspiring for the highest level in our tradition means a goal of achieving kRSNa-prema, not some royal status or the level of an Indra ruling over heaven. So, there is really no blotch on one's character, such as pride (as you have suggested), by harboring such a desire. Yes, our understanding is that attainment of such a goal is an exalted state. It is also our understanding that one is trying to realize genuine humility at the same time. You seem to tend to get overly concerned with certain details, rather than absorbing the essence of the teachings and putting them into practical application. You would do well to take the advice that others here have so kindly offered to you: Finding authority in the recognized sources of sAdhu and zAstra. Please do not take any of this the wrong way - those people were just providing constructive criticism. We all feel you are sincere and on the right track, just that some guidance would be beneficial (we have all been there and saw the need for sat-saGga along the way). We know Jijaji is beyond help and is trying to reach pharmacy-loka (just joking), but there is some hope for you, as long as you can begin and maintain a regimen of daily practice. The one who obtains the most benefit is the one who takes the opportunity to ask questions rather than simply express one's own ideas. Otherwise, they do not gain any knowledge from others. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-10-2002).]

Getting back to my above post, all of those bureacratic layers in the large institution interfere with any productive relationship between spiritual master and disciple. From the above quote, we can see that Srila Prabhupada had to rely on the temple presidents to bring him qualified candidates. Under that situation, the guru is not examining the candidate for dIkSA, but the elder godbrothers are doing that job. That is one very tricky house of cards, when you think about it. Perhaps that whole scenario could be a root cause of many problems over the years. Don't really know, just theorizing.

Since the subject of ISKCON and its parent organization has been broached here, I think many will admit that Srila Prabhupada's followers had a tendency to improvise on their own. For example many of them started chanting Shree Vishnu three times before drinking water, thinking that was a legitimate means of offering the water directly to Vishnu (perhaps some of them still do this). As far as I know that was never a practice introduced by either his Divine Grace or the GBC. Of course, I won't even mention one of the more extreme examples, the infamous Gopi-bhava Club (oh, there I go again, I just did!), but I think eveyone gets the point. That is perhaps generally symptomatic of large institutions, wherein the logistics of quality control of standards and practices gets overly unwieldy in certain respects. I digress. Getting back to the topic at hand, dIkSA - we have to keep in mind the difference between a guru-ziSya relationship that is quite intimate and involves much personal contact and that which is more of a long distance relationship with little or no contact. Again, the institutional logistics come into play, for how would it be feasible for any one spiritual master to have a close relationship with hundreds or thousands of disciples far flung around the globe? Despite all of the accomplishments achievable by large institutions, there is always the tradeoff and essential components lost in the shuffle.

Could it be that this thread has finally run out of steam? That might not be so bad, considering that the conversation constantly wanders away from the topic. What would be helpful for those who really want to follow the topic itself is if JNDas would kindly delete all of the irrelevant posts or move them to another topic (something like "Off Topic Items"). It was introduced as: "I figured a more general discussion of Siddha Pranali might be interesting. Perhaps someone can fill in the details" That is quite a bit different from a discussion of the pros and cons of the institution and its use in sAdhana. There have already been plenty of forum threads devoted to that discussion, which always go around in circles. It was apparent that the initiator of the thread was really just interested in what siddha praNAli is all about. Perhaps that was expecting too much, given the volatile nature of the topic. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-09-2002).]

When Raga pointed out that most did not accept BSS Prahupada's innovations it was clear that he was referring to the Caitanyaite community in West Bengal and Braj. Thus, it was really just a statement of fact, because clearly they were not accepted, and certainly they were not adopted.

I understand your reaction to Raga's remarks, JNDas, but I think you may have misjudged his attitude towards Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Prabhupada. He really does not strike me as a person that would have enmity towards other Vaishnavas, even those he may disagree with.

There's one edition by Satya Narayan Das and another one by BV Tripurari Maharaja. I have the former edition, haven't seen the latter, though they say it is good. Do you know who translated the one by VB Tripurari Swami? As far as I know he is not a Sanskritist.

I basically am watching from the sidelines, but it really is apparent that those 'other dried up branches', as JNDas has called them, have taken the high road, whereas JNDas's group clearly has not. From what I know (not that I have complete knowledge in the matter, by any stretch), both Gaudiya Math and ISKCON received both moral and financial support from those factions JNDas is alluding to over the years. Looks like a clear case of 'biting the hand that feeds you'. So, what kind of reciprocation is turning around and denigrating one's benefactors? Would anyone one call that gratitude? And that support was in spite of the various departures from tradition. So, based on the track record, who is the one holding a grudge and in need of burying the hatchet?

I think many thriving branches on the Caitanya tree might take extreme umbrage at that remark, sir. It smacks of elitism and brutal sectarianism in the extreme. Perhaps you might want to rethink that one, if indeed you are interested in keeping the peace. Since you did not actually name any one group, it is not really possible for anyone to be directly offended, however the implication of your statement (at least the way many would interpret it) is that all other branches have become useless. Also, the use of the superlative ("most amazing feats") indicates making light of the accomplishments and realizations of many Gaudiya saints that also did quite amazing things.

Looks like everything is back in working order today. That's a least a bit of good news for those that enjoy that site.

Looks like theist mistakenly thought he was quoting me, but really was quoting someone else, as I never made those statements. Raga, please fix the above quote so that it is clear the theist is asking those questions and not me. Thanks. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-09-2002).]

We need to remember what the Srimad Bhagavata Purana has to say about sound vibration: That it is the most subtle of elements from which all other elements are created, and that it pierces through to Goloka in the form of the holy name (I am paraphrasing - anyone know the exact quotes?). So, initiation by mantra is much more than a ritual, as there is some divine power therein.

Shiva: Your point is somewhat hazy, actually. The Vaishnava mantra initiation is not to be underestimated as an important step, just as instructions are important at all steps along the way. If you are maintaining that the instructions are the only really important component, then you are just setting forth your own concocted doctrine, which is not in line with the teachings of the Gaudiya acharyas. Besides, it is the paramparA that keeps the instructions going as a living, breathing tradition passed down through the centuries. To say the mantra initiation is not essential is totally ludicrous, for without the mahA-mantra, where is the movement? [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-08-2002).]

One being an ardent follower is not enough to qualify one as a dikSa guru giving Vaishnava dikSa mantras, however it could be applied to the giving of the mahA-mantra. Being an ardent follower without having received actual initiation, while laudable, still falls short of the basic qualification as I have stated it in my above post.

The Rtvik idea was actually borrowed from outside the Gaudiya school - I believe the Shree Sampradaya. It had never been a practice before ISKCON. I guess one can sum it up as lack of faith both on the part of the god-brothers in the eleven and on the part of the guru in his disciples as a whole, that a successor was not named and the eleven were appointed as proxies while Prabhupada was still on the planet. It is also a curious fact that the disciples brought up the issue of succession, rather than simply waiting for the guru to state his wishes on the matter as part of his final will and testament. We have to also take into consideration that none of the disciples at that time were either elderly Indian persons or lifelong bhaktas, which created a number of problems in sorting out the most qualified candidates for the position. Whether or not Prabhupada named each and every one of his disciples as successors is actually immaterial, as that is the teaching of the Gaudiya tradition, that the qualification to be a guru is to have taken initiation from an authorized guru oneself. I personally find it amazing that more people did not ascribe to that traditional view and instead gravitated to the proxy guru idea. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-08-2002).]

For the time being, you can reach the site by its IP address, http://208.179.25.150 . To reach Raganuga Discussions, click here ( http://208.179.25.150/cgi-bin/raga/ikonboard.cgi ) or navigate your way to it through the front page.

Just a couple of comments: If accepting the teachings of the paramparA are the true initiation, then why is that doctrine not among those teachings? I appreciate the sentiment, but it is clearly against the siddhAnta of the Gaudiya acharyas to understate the importance of getting mantras from an authorized source. As far as whether or not Ed Dimock was a devotee, that is not so clear. He did let some remarks slip in class when we were going through Manjari Svarupa Nirupana that he might indeed have considered himself a Vaishnava. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-08-2002).]

What many Indians might not fully appreciate is the type of Victorian morals that espouse sexual repression and the evil connotations given sexual expression, which the Western world continues to be shackled with to this day. It is far easier for a Hollywood studio to get scenes of graphic violence past the censors than those of an erotic nature, even in those films that are not of the pornographic genre, but rather quite in the mainstream. In that context, it is much a more a cultural malaise than one related to celibacy as a spiritual discipline. It also is not quite the same thing as the concept of desires that bind us to the world of cause and effect. The situation is more extreme in America than in Europe. Part of the problem is that attitude tends to spill over into siddhAnta and thus twisting it to an extreme view, which is not in keeping with any school of vedAnta. We have to remember that attraction and aversion are two sides of the same coin. From what I have understood, one who is advanced enough to be beyond material sexual desire has neither attraction nor revulsion towards the opposite sex, just complete indifference. I just thought I would bring up this point, since I did not see it addressed anywhere in these discussions, yet it does come into play in the overall dynamics of the situation. [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-08-2002).]

paul108: If you seriously seek out a senior Vaishnava that might be a suitable initiation (diksa) guru, you could very well be pleasantly surprised as far as their measuring up to your expectations. Then again, even if they do not seem to be as mighty as you expect, as long as they are not ill-behaved and come in an established lineage, they have the qualifications necessary to initiate you. Sometimes we simply have to be realistic. We can wish for Narada Muni to fly down from heaven and give us mantras, but that does not mean it is likely to happen. Getting accepted to Harvard or Oxford is certainly the best, but if we are unable to get into those institutions and yet are accepted to UCLA or even the local community college, that does not mean we will not get a valuable education. Hope this helps.

Was up late last night, but now is down again. Oh, the roller coaster ride of web hosting companies!

JNDas: Is there an English translation in print that people could refer to? Jiva's Sanskrit tends to be difficult even for experienced Sanskritists.

Anyone read that book on Celibacy that Jagat provided the link for? [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-07-2002).]

Your argument is not unadmittedly not semi-nonirrefutably not noncompelling.

So what's your point? [This message has been edited by Rati (edited 05-06-2002).]