cbrahma

The principles of ISKCON's guru-tattva were supported and laid out by the Gaudiya Math disciples they consulted in the eighties. There is no such clean division as ISKCON vs. all other Vaisnavas.

I didn't say the formal diska had no value. But the bona fide spiritual master has not made such a categorical statement about the requirement of formal initiation. He has made just the opposite statements in many instances. Besides if it is such a fundamental and essential requirement, why isnt' it mentioned in the Gita? I put to you that it is the particularly religious and political obsession with the formal process that has torn apart both ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math with vicious battles about guru turf and ownership. If you think this is a spiritual phenomenon, it needs some serious explaining. Also to clarify the logic here, the fact that something isn't necessary, doesn't make it useless or undesirable. But turning an external ritual into an exclusive condition of one's relationship with God, is so abhorrent to me , so patently absurd from a spiritual point of view, that even if it is the case, I want none of it. It trivializes and politicizes what should transcend the prissy rigid control mechanisms of a religion, a church , a despotic and corruptible cult. If the bellicose history of religionist Hinduism doesn't speak for itself in that regard, nothing will.

Ok l will spell it out. Formal diksa is not required by anybody to follow the process of bhakti under the instructions of a bona fide spiritual master. How can I make it any more clear? The quotes by Prabhupada speak for themselves.

Gee how disturbing and...uh...meaningless.

I'm glad you get the humor of it.

I had a SivaRama as my temple president. He was tough and this lecture has his mood. I agree with him that one should follow the regs if one is chanting and aspires to be a devotee. In fact that is what initiation is all about - faithful following. It transcends religious ceremony. How many initiated brahamanas have fallen down, not to mention gurus, by slipping on the basic regulative principles? In fact there is no more conclusive argument against the religious formalism of a so-called traditionalist than the statistics of fall down in the ranks of the initiated. That being said,

The issue is not about raganuga vs vaidi bhakti. It is just that, and please those of you who are stuck on traditional ritualism please write this down because I'm not going to repeat it again. formal diksa is not necessary. That would of course require a physically present guru which ISKCON and the GM are in enthusiastically in agreement on for obvious reasons. They have some gurus for sale. Tradition has nothing to do with it. There is time and circumstance. There is religious ritual and spiritual reality. It is preposterous to suppose that God can only be compelled by some external religious system, or that he can be compelled at all. I tire of posting these but here we go again. The religionist of course has everything invested in the so-called traditional system but that is his ticket, his automatic claim to membership with the Divine. The true vision is that everybody is equally the servant of Krsna Lord Caitanya was able to liberate all who heard him chant including the animals. Did he give them all formal diksa?

You speak so ignorantly without proper evidence on the behalf of tradition and so much against what Prabhupada and his spiritual master have said and accomplished that it only re-affirms the uselessness of your claims to Indian Vaisnavism by some prissy pietism that has obviously withered on the vine and become impotent to engage others in the Yuga-dharma but rather to celebrate its exclusivity and esoteric isolation. Who needs it.

The fact that you're shopping for initiation is suspect in my view. You should acquire knowledge first, then initiation will follow if the guru is qualilfied and you are qualified.

I heard Hari-Sauri at New Dwaraka reading out of his diary about Prabhupada's last days. Somebody asked him, Govinda datta, I think what Prabhupada thought about his disciples associating with his Godbrothers. The answer was resoundingly in the negative. I mention this because that is what I associate him with - the ban against approaching GM gurus.

I don't need to beat anything into my head since I am quite capable of processing logically, which is how I have navigated through your confused arguments. It is painfully obvious that the Mahamantra has nothing to do with diksa as you describe it, yet on the general principle that you have cited that mantras are ineffective without diksa, it is a contradiction. It's not my principle but one you laid down on behalf of all Vaisnavas. I have nothing to do with ISKCON or I would agree with the "physically present diksa guru" party line. Ironically it is what the Gaudiya Math gurus have in common with ISKCON not suprisingly because they helped architect the guru mess. What is fascinating about your religionist stance, is that chanting the names of Krsna has nothing to do with being a Vaisnava, since it has nothing to do with diksa (see your comment I quoted above). That by the way is the logical conclusion of your inconsistent diatribe. Religionist rationalizations are soooo funny. ROFL

This thread began with a definition of diska with which you differed. So again you beg the question. I was talking about the Mahamantra, because you are quoting 'tradition' that mantras have to be given by diksa to be effective and quite frankly, if the Mahamantra is not part of the equation I have no interest in participating in religious Hinduism.

Rigid legalistic adherence to Vedic rituals is religiosity merely and religiosity is simply for the personal distinction and material advancement of the religionist.

You were running two arguments simultaneously. 1 That Prabhupada always did it, therefore it is necessary. 2 That Hari-bhakti-vilasa speaks of initiation and therefore formal diksa is necessary. Answers (one more time) 1. is not ought 2. begs the question of what initiation means. Now you're talking about a specific Gayatri and I was talking about the MahaMantra. Try to stay with me.

Obvious straw man. I know it's tough but try to stay with me. It is the formal diksa that I am calling a ritual and all the of the complicated religious protocol and system of credentials that comes with it.

Somebody may always do something without considering it absolutely necessary. There are many practices Prabhupad followed that were not absolutely necessary like singing 'Radha Mahava' before class. It is your logic which is faulty - turning an 'is' into an 'ought'. Your quote begs the question of the meaning of initiation. And what precisely is the 'Visnu' mantra?

Doesn't prove that he considered formal diksa necessary. He was building his society. What process? What is it? A widget? This ridiculous argument touting religious rituals has convinced me of the futility of chanting. I was thinking about taking it up but on further consideration - I think I'll spare myself all the complications and exquisite torture.

one more time

He did a lot of things - some were religiously unorthodox like giving women brahminical initiation. I'm not going to second guess his motives. I just go by what he said - in several places - it is consistent with his emphasis on hari-nama sankirtana and book distribution as vehicles of spiritual power.

No concoction required. I have Prabhupada saying that the formality is not important. I get it. Prabhupada gets it. I've quoted him. Wake me up when you get it.

I wonder about the status of those 'Guadiya Vaisvanas' that chose to remain in India while Prabhupad travelled the word to preach the mission of Lord Caitanya. When I hear how so many 'Vaisnavas' believe this and that - especially of a religious institutional nature, I am skeptical - why didn't they help Prabhupada, join forces with him instead of criticizing him for 'compromising'

I get the difference between a formal diksa and an essential one. You don't seem to get it though.

You're arguing in circles - I've already addressed that and I'm tired of repeating myself. You don't understand the basic siddhanta. So much for your diksa or re-diksa. Be complacently satisfied with your formal ticket to spiritual advancement. I don't take God so cheaply.