theist

I only know you by your own words. Want to offer a different profile then watch what you say. And nobody is attacking Prabhupada's disciples for being initiated or even the idea of formal initiation. It is the idea of form over substance that we put into question. Also it is incumbant upon those claiming to be Prabhupada's disciples to show their discipleship in their words and deeds when dealing with other members. That is an extra pressure that those claiming discipleship call upon themselves.being a disciple of a particular guru means what you say and do reflects back on your spiritual master. There is a great responsiblity that comes with being a disciple. Perhaps if you spent a little more time on this forum listen and getting to know the participants you would be less inclined to be calling others fools and similar names. You asked about my position. As for myself I do not consider myself initiated formally or informally. I spent a little less than six months in strict temple life in 1971. I found the discipline of such a strict sadhana to be far more then I was willing to commit to. I make no secrect of the fact that I am considerably below the vaidhi bhakti level and am in no way fit to be anyone's disciple. I do consider myself to be somewhere in the long process of diksa which I consider to be the reception of transcendental knowledge and the total transformation of consciousness and change of heart that comes from transcendental knowledge. I am a little bitter about what I have seen some of Prabhupada's "properly initiated disciples" do to his Krishna consciousness movement which has been nothing short of ignoring the transcendental portion of the message. The result has been form over substance. Now I have no beef with the everyday devotees in Iskcon. My beef is with the leadership and their ecclesiastical guru program which has contaminatinated all of Iskcon. On this thread we are challenging the form over substance idea of diksa which is a problem that reaches far beyond Iskcon. I would like to start over with you and extend a hand of friendship. We needn't agree on various philosophical ideas but the name calling most stop. I apologize for my harshness.

Yes it is easy to see how devotees are inspired to hear from him.

The difference you will not find in any of my posts were I call myself a devotee, Vaisnava or a disciple of anyone, whereas you are strutting around playing the big time Iskcon man from back in day. Apparently you haven't yet understood that nobody here is impressed with Iskcons pompous peacock crowd from back in the day. I do treasure the few weeks I received Jayanda's association and the very brief times I was fortunately received the presence of Vishnujana. I met many sweet beginning bhaktas also but I always avoided persons such as you described yourself to be. But I am sure even you had your moments of gentleness and concern for others. Hopefully even a few "Bhakta Louies" along the way.

Yes he is turning Sridhar Maharaja's clear words on their head. One can just feel Sridhar Maharaja is speaking from inspiration and realization and pure appreciation for the name of Krishna. NM goes on to say diksa as in brahmana intiation is needed for archana. Sure, fine, no problem. Pujaris need to be brahmanas before they can serve on the temple altar but one does not need to be a temple pujari to develop love for Krishna. And speaking of the SB let's not forget Sukadeva Gosvami never bothered with thread and a formal diksa ceremony.

Very specifically such things are between myself and God. Mind your own business 3 dot.

Oh my! 3 dot must have really been part of the Iskcon in-crowd. We wouldn't have caught him paying any attention to any ordinary plain and simple devotees now would we? You poor puffed up loser. You want to be respected amongst the devotees? Then serve the lowest weakest devotee in the room, offer him respect and don't expect respect in return. In such a humble state of mind the Lord will let you chant His Holy names constantly.

Sure we can have hundreds of gurus as long as we have only one guru and that guru is Caitya-guru and the gurus are situated in the way described below. You are not in the position Sridhar was talking about or you wouldn't be stumbling over this diksa question which you surely are. Clearly NM is not saying what BR SM is which is the same as what I find in Srila Prabhupada's teaching. Pretending they are saying the same thing is only self delusion. Everyone is free to choose one or the other but you can't agree with them both.

Yes but Sridhar Maharaja is very clear that the purifying agent in the gayatri is actually the holy name of Krishna and not all the other words. I cannot accept that there is a purifying agent stronger than the holy name itself. To suggest that a gayatri mantra is such an agent is not harmonizing Sridhar maharaja's words, it is directly contradicting his whole point that the holy name alone is the active agent. These may be a problem we encounter when we try to hear from all sources. All these teachers are not saying exactly the same thing.

I don't accept the puport to Jiva Gosvami's definition of diksa as given by NM. In fact to me he has turned it inside out. To me this statement covers what diksha is. Does this not describe the chanting of the Holy Names? I f chanting the Holy Names does not vanquish all sinful reactions then what does it do? hearing SB from the proper source is also part of the diksa process because itimparts transcendental knowledge. According to NM it only is refering to the acceptance of gayatri mantra. I reject his conclusion. Take your pick and take your chances.

What's your opinion on the words of BR Sridhar 3 dot?

Here we go with the spin. Now no one can chant the name properly without gayatri initiation. keep at it beggar. Make the simple complicated if that is how you want to experience life. There are many things that help one keep focused on the name not just gayatri mantra. And remember even in the gayatri

What else remains to be said? No need to waste my already severly limited brain power on rehasing this over and over. When the light goes on one stops grasping around in the darkness. If after reading the above by His Grace BR Sridhar Maharaja one still is in darkness on this matter than I can only suggest you stop holding your eyes shut because the light is on.

Thanks cbrahma

One more question for Beggar. B.R. Sridhar Maharaja said that the gayatri mantra is effective only as an adjunct to the Holy Name to the point of liberation and may not even be necessary at all. I am sure you know the quote and the book I read it in but I cannot remember and am not 100% confident I am quoting it correctly. Can you help me by providing the full quoteword for word as well as it's source. Thanks bro.

Prefers or considers it bogus? You seemed to have put a spin on it in NM's favor Beggar. I could be wrong but that is how it seems to me. I had numerous confrontations from NM disciples a few years back on this point and they all quoted NM as saying taped transfer of mantra was bogus and those initiations were not real. I am open to the possibility that they overstated the facts as much as I am to you having understated the facts. I would need some quotes from NM himself to be certain I suppose. Thanks for the response.

Yes this is a true stated, diksa is more than a formality and that is exactly what some of us have been saying. it is an internal experience The internal experience is not dependent upon on external ceremony. The internal experience of receiving transcendental knowledge is dependent solely on the mercy of Caitya guru. This is a simple truth. One has to wonder about the motivation for all the resistence.

I knew your views on the subject AM and understood your reason for posing the question. My (mis)use of the word 'you' may have caused a misunderstanding coming as it did along with a quote from you. I was using it the general sense of 'you' meaning really anyone. Never had much schoolin' and my misuse of proper wording and grammer has probably long since cause our Babhru to skip my posts.

Could noy understand the NM video. Could you please provide a synopsis suchandra?

The discipline Prabhupada laid out is as clear as it ever was. Why pretend there is some mystery that one needs an embodied guru to explain it to you. There may be bone fide gurus in earth bodies now as we speak and their disciples will benefit. But if one is already taking advantage of Prabhupada's books there also is no absolute necessity to seek such a person out. Nor is there any reason to avoid such a person as long as he is consistent with what Prabhupada taught. Srila Prabhupada used casset tapes to impart diksa as in gayatri mantra initiation to his students. let's see if NM's disciple here (and I mean 3 dot) thinks that is bonefide or not. What is NM's opinion about that? Many of us will consider NM's answer to such a question a reflection on his bone fides. Know the answer 3 dot? Let's hear it. How about you Beggar, do you know?

I accept this point in Mahak's post above anything else. Everything else besides the chanting is an adjunct to that chanting. because we have not developed taste for the name there are other things given such as circumambulating the temple. It is not that circumambulating the temple is the yuga-dharma and chanting is the adjunct. Keeping the priorities straight is very important.

Traditionally one seems to be the number. Use one and later if you learn something different then add one more. But don't over worry about it and concentrate mostly on chanting Hare Krishna.

With Kulapavana's approach one must also then compare Sirla Bhaktisiddhanta to Gaura Kishore and Bhaktivinode. And then one must compare them to their predessors ad infinitum. And he calls himself a traditionalist?! When accepting a guru as a representative of the parampara you accept that he is the embodiment of that parampara. The cross checking he describes may be a part of one's search in finding a guru but it must be given up once one finds and surrenders to someone as guru. Endlessly cross-checking and doubting is a symptom of being stuck on the mental plane. Actually despite all his preaching to us about the need to formally accept a guru Kulapavana himself has yet to accept a guru himself despite his ceremony from a zonal 'guru'.

Shakya-vesa avatars are always Vishnu incarnations and spoken of as such in the SB. Buddha, Vyasadeva, Narada Muni, Prithu etc. are also Shaktyavesa avatars and called incarnations of Vishnu. We know that the difference is also always there simulataneously with the oneness. Is this not Lord Caitanya's philosophy? There is Vishnu-tattva and Jiva-tattva. As AM has pointed out Lord Jesus Christ is jiva tattva. What is the difficulty here?

Formal intiation when given by Krishna's devotee is a purely spiritual action. That is because he is actingthat is motivated by love for Krishna. Such a devotee transforms even the simple most ordinary activity into spiritual energy. If he plays with a child that is spiritual also. Now in the beginning the disciple does not understand this. But if he is faithful to the instructions of such a lover of Krishna Krishna will bless Him from within to properly recognize the value of the devotees touch in these activities. If however the apparant disciple balks at the idea of loving Krishna and chooses to stay on the external level of bodily actions only then HE lives in a mundane religious conception and identifies himself as hindu muslim christian buddhist "vaisnava" etc. What he was handed by the guru lover of Krishna was purely transcendental but he only accepted the external portion and rejected the vital portion which is love for Krishna and by so doing choose to perceive something spiritual as mundane. And since we are all bound up by the limits of our perceptions his conceptual prision cell is called 'mundane religion.' Formal initiation rites become mundane in the hands of pretenders and imitators who only mimic the shadow action of the devotee (external movements) without the love for Krishna. He apparantly chants the same mantras, performs the same rituals but without the love for Krishna. Without the vital ingredient of love for Krishna everything is simply an empty shell. Without the love for Krishna there is no connection to TRANSCENDENTAL VAISNAVISM. It is only an empty shell of vaisnavism which goes no further than "keeping up the tradition." The tradition of the Spiritual Sky is love for Krishna. That is the tradition we need to be most concerned with.

... responds to cbrahma this way. <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote: <table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> cbrahma says: "The formality has no potency in itself." You obvioulsy were never part of one, otherwise you could not say such a thing! We who did on the other hand know differently. </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> To which I respond. To which triple dot replied. As if transcendental knowledge is suddenly transfered from guru to disciple via electric shock at the point of the formal initiation rite. This sounds more like Guru Maharaja ji (remember him) and his ilk. It sounds nothing like genuine Vaisnavism. Or even some Christians who claim that because of being Baptised in water they are now quaunteed liberation. And this was the best answer he could come up when asked to be specific, "Like a lightning bolt."