RE: Diksa or Siksa Sampradaya.

[Guest guest]

> As far as the line of the disciplic succession (parampara),

> I am not saying that it "can" go on by siksa. I am saying

> that it *does* go on by siksa. Rather than by the formal

> initiation. As explained by Krsna in the BG verses 4.1 and

> 4.2 (that you seem to keep ignoring).

 

The point is that every guru in the parampara is diksha initiated. But

in deliniating the succession of gurus, there is no need for a

constant diksha link as it is the siksha of the line that determines

it theology. There is no controversy between diksha or siksha. At the

time of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu initiation into the Gaudiya disciplic

succession meant being initiated into your svarupa, and start

practicing raganuga-bhakti directly. In those days, as far as I have

heard, there was one initiation and that was it. Later on in life

there was babaji initiation.

 

ys, Jahnu das

[Guest guest]

At 08:42 PM 3/13/2002 -0800, Madhumati (dd) ACBSP (San Rafael, CA - USA) wrote:

> > I do agree with Madhumati Mataji's comment that this bhakta's

> > understanding may not be total, but atleast he is respecting the rules of

> > the institution. He is better than those who challenge, "how exactly at

> > the time of diksa all the knowledge" is transmitted. They don't

> > understand, that the *entire knowledge is in the form of a seed*, at the

> > time of diksa, and by proper cultivation, the seed develops into a big

> > tree and bears fruits in the course of time.

>

>You may be correct that this devotee shall get the right understanding in

>due course of time; yet, I still have great concern at his not even having a

>*basic* correct understanding! Choosing a guru is such an important decision

>in life, as was pointed out, something that should be from the heart.

>

>There was concern about Iskcon's instutionalisation of guruship, so to

>speak, but this bhakta does not even have this understanding. You'll have to

>forgive me, because all of my books are packed up and also I don't have

>direct quotes memorised that I can give on this issue, but to me, choosing a

>guru is something like falling in love. Of course, this sounds deeply

>sentimental, and if it is, I know Braja will be the first to chide me.

>Perhaps I could more appropriately say that when one finds one's guru, it is

>as though everything falls into place. This is the confirmation from

>caitya-guru - this "aaah" of understanding: this is my guru. And this "aaah"

>cannot come without the understanding which is already imbibed from sadhu

>and sastra.

 

I agree wholeheartedly (Lemme have it, Braja!). I have for many years

compared the relationship between guru and disciple to a romantic

relationship in the sense that we are dealing with matters of the heart

(though guided, as I said before, by sadhu and shastra). Back in the mid

'80s, when I was a gurukula ashram teacher at Bhaktivedanta Village, we

became involved in the revolution sweeping through much of ISKCON. I was

mostly aligned with what the "gurus" disparagingly called "Judyism"

(because its most vocal spokesperson was Jadurani), the "heretical" idea

that the bona-fide guru should be qualified as described in the scriptures.

However, although some of my friends argued that ISKCON should make a law

that only uttama-bhagavats should accept disciples, I dissented. I argued

instead that the solution could only come from education; it was our

responsibility as a community to educate its members to understand the

duties and qualifications of the bona fide spiritual master and the bona

fide disciple, based on guru, sadhu, and shastra, but that the institution

had no legitimate business telling disciples this man was, and that man was

not, a bona fide spiritual master. When I instructed my students in that

way, in the midst of the zonal-guru days, I was questioned about it by

Ramesvara. I told him exactly what my position was and that, unless he

could convince me otherwise, based on (you guessed it!) guru, sadhu, and

shastra, I would not budge an inch. He left me alone. So I don't think this

is a sentimental perspective at all. It's the most Krishna conscious

perspective, in my considered (you thought I was going to say humble,

didn't you?) opinion.

 

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

At 10:52 PM 3/13/2002 -0800, Braja wrote:

> No, this is definitely not a sentimental perspective. But there is also

>some clarification of sentiment required, which I believe I did specify in

>an earlier text. The general term 'sentiment' is categorised in two ways in

>regard to this discussion: material sentiment and spiritual sentiment. My

>question was: how does one make the judicious separation of the two, most

>especially at that particularly early stage of *choosing* one's guru. Do you

>understand what I mean? Where does that discrimination enter? Spiritual

>intelligence, or causeless mercy?

 

That's a very good question, which I think goes to the heart of the matter

and is worthy of much careful discussion. For the discriminating disciple,

confidence--trust--is also part of the draw. This is a very important

decision and not to be taken lightly. Can I trust this person with my

spiritual life, in all circumstances? For me, this isn't just an academic

question; I have two daughters who haven't taken initiation partly because

they're focused on working out how to make a living, but largely because

they haven't yet met anyone who inspires this confidence in them. One

daughter was considering initiation some years ago, but realized that her

confidence in the devotees she was examining was not unreserved. She has

more recently told me that there's only one devotee who does inspire such

confidence. Unfortunately, I am that devotee (Houston, we have a problem).

 

So I think this question that Braja raises is rather important, and I'd

like to hear other devotees' considered opinions.

 

Your aspiring servant,

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

Please accept my respectful obeisances.

All glories to Sri Sri Guru-Gauranga and Sri Sri Radha-Govinda!

 

> She is now almost 18 years old and she loves to be with the devotees, the

> festivals and especially her friends who grew up with her in KC.

> Re-initiation is far away for her but she doesn't exclude it for ever. For

> sure, like all of us, she will be very careful to make a second step in

> this direction.

 

This posting has very much reminded me of my own situation. But I had a

different story.

 

I never was Harikesa Svami's inspiring disciple, I didnt feel any special

attraction for him, only general Vaisnava respect as it is, but because I

live in Germany (formerly his "zone") and witnessed the disaster that our

temple in Wiesbaden has gone through after his "departure", I also suffered

what I called in one of my previous postings a "spiritual coma".

 

Now, what makes my story different is that I found strength not to fade away

by watching a couple of films that I downloaded from Internet. Simple karmi

films, dont wonder now. I dont remember the first one's title but the other

one was "The Shawshank Redemption" about a man who was NOT guilty of a crime

and was sentenced for a double life imprisonment at the Shawshank jail. He

kept his HOPE to escape, and he did it one stormy night. In the other film,

someone said, "You always come back to where you belong to", which at the

spot made me think of my life as a devotee.

 

After watching those two films I tried to recover from my spiritual coma,

and well, I think I am doing better now, but I still miss the major cure,

namely, the reciprocal confidence, something what I've written about in the

previous posting entitled "Confidence".

 

Your humble servant,

Sergei.

[Guest guest]

Starting to pic through my back log of 6,000 emails alphabetically. I'm not

in the B's.

 

And yes, ditto. A guru is between guru and disciple. We can not legislate

guru either way, we can educate and there in lies our responsibility as a

preaching or educational institution.

 

Ditto to you Babru as always.

 

raghu

 

 

Applied.Krishna.Consciousness (AT) pamho (DOT) net

[Applied.Krishna.Consciousness (AT) pamho (DOT) net] On Behalf Of Babhru (das)

ACBSP (San Diego - USA)

Wednesday, March 13, 2002 7:32 PM

Applied Krishna Consciousness; WWW: Balaji Prasad (Singapore)

Re: Diksa or Siksa Sampradaya.

 

At 08:42 PM 3/13/2002 -0800, Madhumati (dd) ACBSP (San Rafael, CA - USA)

wrote:

> > I do agree with Madhumati Mataji's comment that this bhakta's

> > understanding may not be total, but atleast he is respecting the rules

of

> > the institution. He is better than those who challenge, "how exactly at

> > the time of diksa all the knowledge" is transmitted. They don't

> > understand, that the *entire knowledge is in the form of a seed*, at the

> > time of diksa, and by proper cultivation, the seed develops into a big

> > tree and bears fruits in the course of time.

>

>You may be correct that this devotee shall get the right understanding in

>due course of time; yet, I still have great concern at his not even having

a

>*basic* correct understanding! Choosing a guru is such an important

decision

>in life, as was pointed out, something that should be from the heart.

>

>There was concern about Iskcon's instutionalisation of guruship, so to

>speak, but this bhakta does not even have this understanding. You'll have

to

>forgive me, because all of my books are packed up and also I don't have

>direct quotes memorised that I can give on this issue, but to me, choosing

a

>guru is something like falling in love. Of course, this sounds deeply

>sentimental, and if it is, I know Braja will be the first to chide me.

>Perhaps I could more appropriately say that when one finds one's guru, it

is

>as though everything falls into place. This is the confirmation from

>caitya-guru - this "aaah" of understanding: this is my guru. And this

"aaah"

>cannot come without the understanding which is already imbibed from sadhu

>and sastra.

 

I agree wholeheartedly (Lemme have it, Braja!). I have for many years

compared the relationship between guru and disciple to a romantic

relationship in the sense that we are dealing with matters of the heart

(though guided, as I said before, by sadhu and shastra). Back in the mid

'80s, when I was a gurukula ashram teacher at Bhaktivedanta Village, we

became involved in the revolution sweeping through much of ISKCON. I was

mostly aligned with what the "gurus" disparagingly called "Judyism"

(because its most vocal spokesperson was Jadurani), the "heretical" idea

that the bona-fide guru should be qualified as described in the scriptures.

However, although some of my friends argued that ISKCON should make a law

that only uttama-bhagavats should accept disciples, I dissented. I argued

instead that the solution could only come from education; it was our

responsibility as a community to educate its members to understand the

duties and qualifications of the bona fide spiritual master and the bona

fide disciple, based on guru, sadhu, and shastra, but that the institution

had no legitimate business telling disciples this man was, and that man was

not, a bona fide spiritual master. When I instructed my students in that

way, in the midst of the zonal-guru days, I was questioned about it by

Ramesvara. I told him exactly what my position was and that, unless he

could convince me otherwise, based on (you guessed it!) guru, sadhu, and

shastra, I would not budge an inch. He left me alone. So I don't think this

is a sentimental perspective at all. It's the most Krishna conscious

perspective, in my considered (you thought I was going to say humble,

didn't you?) opinion.

 

Babhru das