Definition Of Diksha

[bija 0]

You are totally correct Theist, the Holy Name is free to act because the Holy Name is non-different to God.

 

But we must also consider words of wisdom from our acarya-predecessors. Here is the final paragraph from Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti's treatise on raganuga bhakti.

 

We all know Sri Caitanya came to give raganuga bhakti. We all know that the Holy Name is not bound by rules - He is free to act.

 

So how to find balance in these seemingly contradictory subjects?

 

Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakura in his final exhortation in Sri Ragavartama-candrika gives a gem of wisdom, for those aspiring to follow the raganuga path set forth by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu:

 

 

Ragavartma-candrika:

 

'....Those who say that raganuga-bhakti is always far above the rules and regulations of the scriptures, and those who reject the scriptural injunctions but take up Deity worship with faith, are condemned by the Bhagavad-gita in the words vidhihina asprstnna. This censure disturbs them now and in the future. There is no need for further elaboration on this topic. Just remember, the path of raganuga-bhakti is laborious and cumbersome even for the demigods. O Krsna conscious and intelligent devotees, use this moonlike beacon (ragavartama-candrika) to give you clear vision on the path of raga-bhakti.'

 

here is the full book - read here

 

Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakura spoke out strongly against some divergent teachings circulating in his time. One teacher he spoke out against was Rupa Kaviraja. Rupa Kaviraja espoused the raga-marga totally rejecting the viddhi-marga. Claiming that smarana (remeberance) was all that was needed (and other contradictory teachings). So Srila Cakravarti Thakura defined in his writings the correct procedures to move toward the raga-marga.

 

Here is the Bhagavad Gita Verse:

 

 

chapter 17 verse 13

 

vidhi-hīnam asṛṣṭānnaṁ

mantra-hīnam adakṣiṇam

śraddhā-virahitaṁ yajñaṁ

tāmasaṁ paricakṣate

 

 

vidhi-hīnam—without scriptural direction; asṛṣṭa-annam—without distribution of prasādam; mantra-hīnam—with no chanting of the Vedic hymns; adakṣiṇam—with no remunerations to the priests; śraddhā—faith; virahitam—without; yajñam—sacrifice; tāmasam—in the mode of ignorance; paricakṣate—is to be considered.

 

 

TRANSLATION

And that sacrifice performed in defiance of scriptural injunctions, in which no spiritual food is distributed, no hymns are chanted and no remunerations are made to the priests, and which is faithless—that sacrifice is of the nature of ignorance.

 

 

PURPORT

Faith in the mode of darkness or ignorance is actually faithlessness. Sometimes people worship some demigod just to make money and then spend the money for recreation, ignoring the scriptural injunctions. Such ceremonial shows of religiosity are not accepted as genuine. They are all in the mode of darkness; they produce a demoniac mentality and do not benefit human society.

 

I appreciate Beggars previous comment in this thread:

 

If Krsna nama wants to merge someone in ecstacy, He can do what ever He wants. This is an example of krpa siddha. But the formal system of hare nama initiation and diksa goes on. The reason is the example given by Srila Prabhupada that most persons will have to go to four years of college to get a degree. Occasionally a person will receive an honorary degree, but we can't count on it and that is why we must follow the process given by the acaryas. posted by beggar

The way I see it all these processes are manifestations of the acaryas compassion (prasadam - see gita verse above) (who are infact direct rays of compassion emanating from Sri Krsna). Their teachings are surely prasadam!

 

I seriously bring into question cbrahma and his usage of the word 'prissy pietism'!

What is he referring to as prissy pietism? The teachings of the acaryas?

 

Raganuga bhakti is a rare rare treasure, close to the internal spiritual reality of Sri Krsna. The treasure of bhakti. As per Srila Vishvanatha Cakravarti Thakura, it is not an easy path to tread even for the demigods.

 

Ancient Mariner I would use caution in using terms like prissy pietism and taking this kind of siksha. Ofcourse I will give cbrahma the benefit of the doubt that he did not mean to use that term in this context - denegrating the acaryas teachings.

 

[theist 1]

Bija,

 

You are speaking as if there is something in Lord Caitanya's words that decry sadhana bhakti. I saw no such thing myself.

 

Also are you suggesting that the holy name alone cannot give rise to raganuga bhakti?

 

 

Madhya 15.109 - “By chanting the holy name of the Lord, one dissolves his entanglement in material activities. After this, one becomes very much attracted to Krishna, and thus dormant love for Krishna is awakened.

[bija 0]

 

You are speaking as if there is something in Lord Caitanya's words that decry sadhana bhakti. by theist

Not at all Theist. I am saying the opposite...sadhana bhakti is very important. Srila Vishvanatha Thakura's book unfolds its importance very nicely. Its worth reading. The link above is not the nicest translation unforunately.

 

 

 

Also are you suggesting that the holy name alone cannot give rise to raganuga bhakti? by theist

I am definately not suggesting this. What I was subtley suggesting is if we desire that kripa (mercy) of the holy name...we should not denegrate the processes that the acaryas so mercifully gave. If we hold in high esteem these teachings within our heart...maybe then that 'exalted' kripa of the holy name may choose to descend.

 

Please see my chart on the previous page.

 

I am confused by cbrahma. One moment he seems to glorify Srila Prabhupada as the highest truth. At other times he severely criticizes the rules and regulations. So many contradictory views seem to chop and change within his mind, coming forth in his words. Like crocodiles waiting to devour new readers who are not well read in our traditions sastra.

 

I am sure he does not mean to destroy newly budding faith in young ones?

 

It saddens me Theist, because I once listened to every whim on this forum. I feel for some members here who I love - I won't mention who they are.

 

CC Adi 2.1

śrī-caitanya-prabhuṁ vande

bālo ’pi yad-anugrahāt

taren nānā-mata-grāha-

vyāptaṁ siddhānta-sāgaram

 

TRANSLATION

I offer my obeisances to Sri Caitanya Mahāprabhu, by whose mercy even an ignorant child can swim across the ocean of conclusive truth, which is full of the crocodiles of various theories.

PURPORT

By the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, even an inexperienced boy with no educational culture can be saved from the ocean of nescience, which is full of various types of philosophical doctrines that are like dangerous aquatic animals. The philosophy of the Buddha, the argumentative presentations of the jñānīs, the yoga systems of Patañjali and Gautama, and the systems of philosophers like Kaṇāda, Kapila and Dattātreya are dangerous creatures in the ocean of nescience. By the grace of Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu one can have real understanding of the essence of knowledge by avoiding these sectarian views and accepting the lotus feet of Kṛṣṇa as the ultimate goal of life. Let us all worship Lord Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu for His gracious mercy to the conditioned souls.

[bija 0]

 

Ragavartma-candrika:

 

'....Those who say that raganuga-bhakti is always far above the rules and regulations of the scriptures, and those who reject the scriptural injunctions but take up Deity worship with faith, are condemned by the Bhagavad-gita in the words vidhihina asprstnna. This censure disturbs them now and in the future. There is no need for further elaboration on this topic. Just remember, the path of raganuga-bhakti is laborious and cumbersome even for the demigods. O Krsna conscious and intelligent devotees, use this moonlike beacon (ragavartama-candrika) to give you clear vision on the path of raga-bhakti.'

Here it is: rules and regulations is supported in the above bold type. So is mantra diksha indirectly because he is referring to deity worship here also. One needs to follow the scriptural injunctions to do this deity worship.

So if we neglect these injunctions, Srila Thakura is saying we are condemned according to Gita. The Gita says such worship is disturbance to society, even demonic. He is saying these people may choose to neglect, but the mentioned Gita verse will always come to disturb them, now and in the future.

As sadhakas attempting to find our way with vidhi and raga bhakti, such scriptures as above are like moon rays, to guide us. We need to study them deeply to see where we are on the path. The moon rays of such books will light that up for us. And if we are self honest we will know where we are. Personally I can barely practice vidhi marga - so am crying for mercy (which is an anga of bhakti by the way:)) Maybe such kripa is the only hope Theistji (I am guessing you feel the same)!

 

So those who are firmly situated in raganuga bhajan...what do they do? What did our predecessor acarayas do? What did Srila Prabhupada do?

 

Even though they were not bound by rules and regulations...they still did them to set the example for the fallen conditioned souls to follow.

 

Now if kripa comes and gives us raga instantly...what shall we do? Exhibit our total freedom in love (which is a fact)...allowing others who do not see our internal reality to be mislead by our freedom? Or if we were full of compassion would we choose to exhibit externally something that the conditioned could follow.

 

This brings me to my final point on this thread. Mantra-diksha (gayatri), pancaratrika vidhi (deity worship), sadhana bhakti (rules and regulations) etc....are all compassionate expressions of the liberated follower of the bhagavata-path. Compassion sets an example for those who do not yet see their internal reality.

 

Our intrinsic internal (eternal) reality is spontaneous flow of love...Gaudiya Vaisnavism is a manifestation of mercy. With great teachings from great teachers...to one day bring us to that spontaneous flow.

 

[theist 1]

Again it is you who are bringing in talk of raganuga bhakti. I admittedly haven't followed this thread in a scrutinizing fashion but I haven't noticed anyone attacking vidhi marga. I may have missed it. If no one is attacking it then there is no reason to defend it.

 

Here is a point to consider. Lord Caitanya's chanting movement is said to be universal and for mass consumption. Even dog eaters can take to Hari nama without first giving up the disgusting habit of eating dogs. Chanting, glorifying the names of the Lord in accord with one's local language and personal religion is the message I hear. Not that the goal is to turn everyone in the world into dhoti wearing, shaven headed Hare Krsna's and followers of the pancharatrika system. The goal is to spread the mono-theistic understanding of God and to induce others to chant His names and live and earthly life in line with the principles laid down in Sri Isopanishad.

 

I see an over emphasis placed on the pancharatrika system to the point where it is given equal status to the chanting of the holy names or seen as an indespensible activator of the potency of the holy names.

 

AM's example of Jada Bharata is very meaningful.

 

For those attracted to the pancharatrika system I have no objection. It is wonderful. I am not so attracted and to try and force myself in that direction has never born good fruit. My path is different. The common and indispensible connection is to be found in the holy name.

 

Deity worship is fine. I accept Deity worship as bone fide worship of God. But in the world's present climate how far will Deity worship go? Is Deity worship a necessity or is hari nama the necessity?

 

I say the name.

[cbrahma 0]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

So anyway, from 1922 to 1933 practically I was not initiated, but I got the impression of preaching Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cult. That I was thinking. And that was the initiation by my Guru Maharaja.

(Lecture, Hyderabad, 10/12/76)

 

 

 

 

 

 

The chanting Hare Krishna is our main business, that is real initiation. And as you are all following my instruction, in that matter, the initiator is already there.

(Letter to Tamal Krishna, 19/8/68)

 

 

 

 

 

 

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)

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

<CENTER>Chapter 5. Karma-yoga--Action in Krsna Consciousness</CENTER>

 

TEXT 18

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vidya-vinaya-sampanne

brahmane gavi hastini

suni caiva sva-pake ca

panditah sama-darsinah

SYNONYMS

 

vidya--education; vinaya--gentleness; sampanne--fully equipped; brahmane--in the brahmana; gavi--in the cow; hastini--in the elephant; suni--in the dog; ca--and; eva--certainly; sva-pake--in the dog-eater (the outcaste); ca--respectively; panditah--those who are so wise; sama-darsinah--do see with equal vision.

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste].

 

Lord Caitanya was able to liberate all who heard him chant including the animals. Did he give them all formal diksa?

[Beggar 0]

 

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.

 

This is a huge jump of logic, that since that since real initiation is transcendent then "formal diksa is not necessary". If this was Srila Prabhupada's understanding then he made a big mistake by giving his followers first and second initiation or diksa. When I joined Iskcon in 1971 why was I subjected to having to chant at least 16 rounds, follow the 4 rules, live in the temple and do full time service for 6 months before I was recommended for hare nama initiation? Did the temple president, Satsvarupa Prabhu, make these things up? Obviously, not he was constantly in correspondance with Srila Prabhupada, almost more than anyone to do his editing work. Everyone knows that these were Prabhupada's instructions to the temple presidents and that the GBCs were supposed to make sure that these things were carried out properly.

EVEN THE RTVIK CAMP GIVES FORMAL DIKSA on "behalf of Srila Prabhupada. So cbrahma is so dull that he does not see that he is actually calling Srila Prabhupada a traditional ritualist.

 

 

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...

 

This is all word jugglery or semantics. For instance, in current English usage the word "tradition" connotes something that is merely accepted because our parents and grandparents accepted it. The word "tradition" therefore has a pejoritive flavor in today's common usage. But an English speaker 100 years ago would find no problem in calling a line of disciplic succession or parampara a "tradition".

 

 

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.

 

So by "traditional system" in this context cbrahma means the process of receiving hare nama by accepting tulasi mala from a Gaudiya Vaisnava guru and then eventually accepting the gayatri mantras.

So what he is implying is that anyone who receives formal initiation is somehow bound by the conditioning nature of that process to make a superficial approach to divinity. No doubt some persons do have such a mentality. But if such a superficial mentality is the product of the hare

nama initiation and diksa process then why would it have been created in its current style by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur and brought to the West by Srila Prabhupada? I am fairly sure that Srila Prabhupada would consider cbrahma's statements to be atheistic (or at least bordering on it).

 

... Lord Caitanya was able to liberate all who heard him chant including the animals. Did he give them all formal diksa?

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu is actually Krsna, Himself with the heart and effulgence of Srimati Radharani. I think that His chanting has a special quality.

[♣♣♣ 0]

"formal diksa is not necessary"

LOL

[cbrahma 0]

 

"formal diksa is not necessary"

 

LOL

 

I'm glad you get the humor of it.

[theist 1]

With all due respect Beggar I don't think you are hearing cbrahma correctly. Just because tradition is followed does not mean it is an absolute necessity.

 

Ask yourself these questions.

 

1. What is the value of formal diksa without the internal realization?

 

2. What is the value of no formal diksa and yet having the intetrnal realization?

 

3. One man has both formal diksa and the internal realiztion.

 

Which is more valuable position of the three, having the internal realization and no formal diksa or having both formal diksa and the internal diksa?

 

If you think one is superior to the other please explain why you think this way.

 

I say they are of the same value and that formal diksa neither adds or subtracts from the spiritual reality. One man may have a nice wallet containing $1,000 in his pocket. Another man has $1,000 in his pocket and no wallet. It is clear there wealth is equal to each other as evidence by their having the same buying power.

 

2.and 3. are equal to each other and 1. ( mundane religiousity or piety) is useless by itself.

[suchandra 1]

 

With all due respect Beggar I don't think you are hearing cbrahma correctly. Just because tradition is followed does not mean it is an absolute necessity.

 

 

2. What is the value of no formal diksa and yet having the internal realization?

 

 

Good point, it seems that Prabhupada was also aware of this that hardly anyone had any actual realization. In fact when reading statement below it should be clear how Prabhupada missed internal realization so badly among his neophyte disciples.

 

"Just like some of our students, immediately married and again, “Give me sannyāsa.” What is this? Irresponsible, that’s all. Irresponsibility. So these things are not required at all. These things are not required. Bahu-duḥkha-bhājaḥ. After marrying they see it is very great responsibility. “Now let me take sannyāsa.” That’s all. Why you marry? Because he finds that after marriage there are so many difficulties. So irresponsible man."

 

Morning Walk Conversation

with His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

May 28, 1974, Rome

[Sarva gattah 0]

What about the story of George Harrison?

 

Formal diksa?

 

Srila Prabhupada - "George Harrison is already my disciple"

 

Although such a situation is very rare, there is ALWAYS exceptions to the traditional rules.

 

Lets face it, more people back in the 60s and 70s heard about Krsna because of George Harrison than anyone else thanks to Prabhupada of course

[Beggar 0]

 

...Which is more valuable position of the three, having the internal realization and no formal diksa or having both formal diksa and the internal diksa?

 

If you think one is superior to the other please explain why you think this way.

 

Obviously internal realization is most important, yet the requirement of formal initiation is a necessity for the overwhelming majority of practitioners. There is although, plenty of room for the exceptions such as George Harrison and others. Here's an example and of course all examples have their limitations. Suppose a society wants couples to stay together and raise their children in an intact family unit. In the marriage ceremony the couple takes a vowel to stay together, but that doesn't mean they really will. The formal ceremony just increases their chances and helps to reinforce the values of monogamy. Similarly, formal initiation and diksa are there to help increase sraddha or faith and guru nistha. Of course connection with a bona fide guru should be held in a higher regard than a mundane relationship. If formal connection with a real guru leads to a substantial connection with guru and Krsna then that is a good thing. So clearly it is iconoclastic and nihilistic to denigrate the formal connection with guru. Of course if one believes that there are no bona fide spiritual masters on the face of the Earth at present, then it may be a good propaganda tactic to argue in such a way. But like I noted previously, even the Rtviks have their Rtvik gurus perform formal initiations.

[♣♣♣ 0]

 

I'm glad you get the humor of it.

 

I'm not laughing with you..

 

[Kulapavana 0]

 

formal diksa is not necessary.

 

not neccessary for what? and not neccessary for whom?

 

is Deity worship neccessary? how about following the regs?

 

and btw. we are not talking about the bare bones requirement to "be saved". we are talking about definitions.

[cbrahma 0]

 

I'm not laughing with you..

 

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

[Beggar 0]

 

 

 

However, when a devotee has brought so many souls to the state of daily chanting the Holy Name, why not just overlook such irregularieties?

 

 

Personally I try not to be an obsessive fault finder, but I am about to call a spade and spade. This is a first hand experience that I have previously posted in an abbreviated form. When I was in Phoenix last month the Iskcon TP informed me that Hridayananda Maharaja was his GBC. I said, "Oh and how is that?" He replied, "It's like having a fringy as your GBC. Usually he comes to the temple wearing shorts and a t-shirt." Giving the benefit of the doubt I replied that, "maybe he's just not into formalities." Then the TP replied, "Yeah but I'm not sure if he even believes in the philosophy (of Krsna Consciousness) anymore. His classes are more like those of a college professor than of a devotee." Somehow I believe that aspiring devotees need more than that, for a guru. I guess its true that you get what you deserve, but it certainly is unfortunate.

[cbrahma 0]

 

not neccessary for what? and not neccessary for whom?

 

is Deity worship neccessary? how about following the regs?

 

and btw. we are not talking about the bare bones requirement to "be saved". we are talking about definitions.

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.

[mahak 0]

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. - cbrahma

 

mahak- Does anyone see the flaw in this statement? If the instructions of the spiritual master includes to take initiation, to approach a bonafide spiritual master and humbly serve with rapt attention, which are the instructions as well as the program of Srila Prabhupada, how can one, in the same sentence, say that formal diksa initiation has no value nor is required?

 

It is like saying one can have conjugal relationship without undergoing marriage and its the same thing.

 

Formal initiation by diksa guru is not required to follow process, and advancement is ensured by dilligently doing ones best in that regard, but to enter a transcendental relationship with ones spiritual master is necessary in order to achieve the highest goal as described by the Guru.

 

Haridas Thakur never went thru any formal diksa initiation process, and there may be many others as well, but these are exceptions rather than rules. Haridas Thakur is nitya siddha playing a role in his eternal service to Krsna, bhakta joe is not a nitya siddha, but rather a kanistha adhikary, prone to cheap imitation. The sadhana bhakti process is the science that elevates one from offensive beginner to a spontaneous lover of the supreme lord, and diksa initiation is part of this process.

 

I do not disrespect kanistha adhikarys here, Srila Prabhupada includes them as vaisnavas, who are all pure devotees guaranteed success. Of every 10,000 folks living, there may be one kanistha adhikary. But to surrender to this third class vaisnava stage is like the born again christians who refuse to grow up, refuse to continue to always wipe their bloody sins on Lord Jesus Christ. Maturity means one has a desire to love Krsna spontaneously, so diksa initiation, rendering service to one more advanced, these are not threats to be feared. However, as taught by Srila Prabhupada, specifically in second chapter of his Science of Self Realization, work is to be done by disciple. Convenience and esteem are terrible reasons to agree to accept a formal relationship with Guru. Prabhupada calls this cheap act fanaticism.

 

So, I am a formal harinama initiate of Srila Prabhupada. Apparently, I have not received diksa initiation, as I begged him to not give me brahmanical standard because I was not fully following his desire regarding getting high. He was very pleased, and this was a second initiation for me, because my goal was to please him. Had I taken the thread and done the spliff, I could say I was a diksa initiate, but I pleased him with my decision to skip that process, and pleasing him is everything, while getting status in his society is dry without rendering such pleasure, so I have no regrets.

 

I have many spiritual masters, the chief being my humble godbrother Srila BA Paramadvaiti Swami. I have never met him, Im kinda afraid of presenting myself to him, but I am content knowing that Srila Prabhupadas rteachings are being continued. I dont use adjectives for guru, so paramadwaiti swami is accepted as guru. Maybe someday I will get off my peninsula and go see him, even volunteer to work for him, and maybe ask to be his formal disciple. But in the meantime, I will try to be pleasing to him by doing my best to follow our spiritual master.

 

Guru is one, Chaita guru, and he is the director of guru tattwa, no other can do this. To accept diksa because one takes advice of other kanistha adhikaris may simply be fanaticism. But to be pleasing to the spiritual master makes Lord Nityananda see the sincerity level and direct the self to one who just may allow a formal relationship, based on love and reciprocation, not fear and coercion, with a diksa guru. No one else can point they way, as confirmed by both Srila Prabhupada as well as Lord Jesus' Instructions to his disciples.

 

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

[bija 0]

 

Formal initiation by diksa guru is not required to follow process, and advancement is ensured by dilligently doing ones best in that regard, but to enter a transcendental relationship with ones spiritual master is necessary in order to achieve the highest goal as described by the Guru. by mahak

Earlier I bought in a discussion of raganuga bhakti. Then, it seems it was perceived I was bringing in a leaning of vaidhi vs raga. This was not my intention. I am trying to paint a picture of the 'big picture'. From start to finish (if I can say start to finish - that is not quite right).

 

You say it so well here Mahak. Personally I have not taken brahmana initiation or 'harinaam initiation'. Why? Because of the desire to please my guru I am waiting. It would a great mistake if I was to accept a formality for show or honor, without the necessary realization in my heart of following gurus instructions for those initiations.

 

 

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) posted by cbrahma

 

cbrahma gave the quote earlier that initiation does not depend on formality and another member gave the example of George Harrison. These two are great examples of initiation of the heart. When guru and disciple accept on the heart level...that is it! That is initiation! The disciple in his heart says...'this teaching is truth...I accept and desire to follow'. At some point then the formallization will possibly take place (not always). And the process begins...of external and internal meeting.

 

Why did I talk about raganuga bhakti, vaidhi bhakti, deity worship etc...(I forgot to mention love of God)! Our tradition covers a large scope, and the more we move into its depth, by reading, by chanting, by offering respects etc...we can see finer and finer elements of Sri Caitanya's teachings and esoteric life.

 

What concerns me is if we begin to say, 'this is not necessary, that is not necessary'....and eventually saying 'oh prissy pitesim, dead tradition, unecessary ritualistic practice etc etc!'. Then we may be discarding something very rich. Something the acarays have chosen to continue on, to pass down... because of the richness.

 

In the history of Gaudiya Vaisnavism, people came along and espoused paths of spontaneous flow only, and various other things. The acaryas wrote treatises to stop these thinkers teachings taking foothold (and most of their teachings died away). The acarayas used scriptural basis and deep realization of Sri Caitanya's bhakti to teach the public of the inadequacy of these divergent teachings.

 

The world has changed in the last five hundred years. Will all this tradition be necessary in the future? I question these things all the time. Many people these days see tradition as a bad word. I do not. But I am a 'progressive traditionalist'. Tradition is not a bad thing, many wonderful things have come from mankinds spiritual unfoldment over its history. Maybe it would be foolish to disregard everything of our past. But...if the past stops the flow of living in the present, in time, place, and circumstance...and begins to stifle the flow of service to Krsna, if the world changes very much...then we must consider what to let go of! Wisdom needs to be used. Those who are purely anti-tradition are limited in their vision in my opinion.

 

Deity worship involves many rules and regulations, and not all will be attracted. Srila Prabhupada at one point encouraged his disciples to make Gaura-Nitai dolls and hand them out on the street. He said if people put these cloth dolls in their homes and sing to them, the Lord would be very happy! This is moving with the times isnt it! He called them 'the good luck happy dolls'.

 

Gaudiya Vaisnavism is a very broad science, that is why I mentioned some higher aspects of our tradition in this conversation....to try and show that it is not wise to leave out anything, when the goal is so rich...love of God in spontaneous mood.

 

But even the simplest practicioners like myself, who offer a little bhoga, chant the names, and read some....are not left out of the possibility of love of God. Jaya Sri Sri Nitaai-Gauranga! The whole depth of the tradition, all the rules and angas of bhakti, all the external clothes and sikhas, the siddha pranali....all these things may not be in my reach! But...if I chant the name, take prasadam, and read the books....and offer full respects and love to the total richness of our tradition as mentioned above, then maybe, just maybe...kripa begins to come down. That is my prayer!

 

For me that is a good approach to bhakti...rather than rejecting tradition (or criticizing it with poor fund of knowledge).

[bija 0]

 

not neccessary for what? and not neccessary for whom?

 

is Deity worship neccessary? how about following the regs?

 

and btw. we are not talking about the bare bones requirement to "be saved". we are talking about definitions. by kula

 

Kula could you share a little of what you mean by 'definitions'?

 

Thank you.

 

[bija 0]

I have been sitting next to my pc recalling memories.

 

The first time I saw and heard the name Krsna.

 

I saw the syllables on the cover of Srila Prabhupada's book. That was it...

 

It charmed me..the syllables where mysterious and beautiful. The attraction was instant. The syllables had a living presence.

 

Somedays I wish for that feeling to come again...simple pure attraction. That was the initiation, the beginning... Krsna

 

The first time I heard the written word Krsna spoken from the lips of a devotee was sweet. I took that name with me and began to chant it also.

 

Does anyone else here have similar memories of the first time they saw those two syllables?

[theist 1]

 

Gaudiya Vaisnavism is a very broad science, that is why I mentioned some higher aspects of our tradition in this conversation....to try and show that it is not wise to leave out anything, when the goal is so rich...love of God in spontaneous mood.

Right. But I am also trying to broaden it out but in another direction. God consciousness is not the exclusive domain of Gaudiya Vaisnavism. People all around the world have their particular names for the Supreme Being. The Lord has "hundreds and millions of names..." and all of them are invested with His transcendental potency.

 

I am trying to get it across that it is not a spiritual requirement that one take initiation into the tradition of GV at all. What is a requirement is that one humble themselves before the Supreme Being by chanting and glorifying His name.

 

It is not that the Holy Name will not act in their lives because they are not formally initiated into GV.

[bija 0]

Yeah. I have read enough of your thoughts in print Theist to know what you are trying to bring out. Its good too! I fully agree.

 

The richness of Gaudiya tradition is beautiful, that attracts me. But Vaikuntha is unlimited isnt it...unlimited devotees live there.

 

There must be room for diversity in this world (even more so if we can glimpse a portion of spiritual diversity).

 

cya (the day is getting away i better go catch it)... Hari! Hari!

[cbrahma 0]

 

Does anyone see the flaw in this statement? If the instructions of the spiritual master includes to take initiation, to approach a bonafide spiritual master and humbly serve with rapt attention, which are the instructions as well as the program of Srila Prabhupada, how can one, in the same sentence, say that formal diksa initiation has no value nor is required?

 

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.