uninitiated siksha gurus?

Guruvani · June 28, 2003

I remember reading that myself. I cannot argue that. The question thus arises; what is knowledge? Is it knowledge of books? Knowledge of things way beyond our actual level of attainment?

If we overlook the natural system of seniority and then go to judge devotees based upon their book knowledge, is that the real calculation? Is book knowledge actual knowledge? Who are we to then judge who has knowledge or not, because knowledge can be a subjective consideration based upon what your idea of what knowledge is. Can knowledge be vijnana or is knowledge the study of books? What is vijnana? Again, we have to then become judge and jury as to who has actually applied vijnana to the greatest degree in their life.

Ultimately, the natural system of seniority is the most practical because the qualifications of judging another devotee can be so subjective that there is no absolute standard that can easily be applied.

Respecting devotees as senior because they came to the movement before we did is not a dangerous practice. What is dangerous is the judging of devotees based upon our own unqualified speculation as to who has the most knowledge.

What is knowledge and who has the most is a very difficult judgement to make. My practical experience in ISKCON was that devotees who joined the movement before we did were given the respect as senior Godbrothers and we were never told to try and judge who had the most knowledge to determine who was senior or junior. It is a very practical system and certainly less complicated and risky than trying to become the judge as to who has the most knowledge. Ultimately, real knowledge is bhakti and not book learning. Who has the qualifications to know who has the most bhakti?

If you think you are the judge of that then you are in big trouble spiritually.

theist · June 28, 2003

One question for you: Would you be willing to reject the words of the Gosvamis in favor of what you feel Prabhupada says?<<

Reject is not the word I would use,it implies an either/or which i don't see. I see words as being subordinate to purport or intent or essence (can't quite find the desired word). I don't desire access to the Gosvami's words apart from what Prabhupada teaches.One thing is that they taught in different time and societal context/circumstance then the one I find myself in.

>>That being asked, let me ask another one: Do you agree that according to the Gosvamis, diksa is defined as the physically present guru's reciting the diksa-mantra into the ear of the disciple? <<

I have seen diksa translated as initiation. So from my perspective its back to the endless circle of apparently competing definitions.

People will emphasize this or that, but I don't see them as nullifying each other. The import to any person's life will be seen according to the context of that life.

Let me ask you one. Prabhupada gave second intiation via tape from ten thousand miles away. certainly not physically present. Do you consider those authentic transmissions of gayatri?

theist · June 28, 2003

You cannot just present one or two statements and say it is "clear". You have to examine all the different statements, reconcile apparently opposing views, and then present a synthesis.<<

I am satisfied with the synthesis that Prabhupada has presented.

Priitaa · June 30, 2003

Yes guru must be qualified. But that's not the point. You titled your post that everyone needs offical intiation. The letters state something different.

It's not in question that everyone needs intiation. "You must be born again to enter the Kingdom of God..."

What constitues initiation seems to be the issue.

Haribol Thiest,

I suspect there is some misunderstanding of my original post. It was not a recent post I replied to but from the very beginning of the thread, so the topic may have been different than current ones. I had not read the current ones.

I was under the impression that the poster was asking about Diskha and not Siksa.

Yes, I agree initiation can take place in the heart. My concern is that I have seen many who claim they have a qualified guru and that they themselves are following, but aren't, yet think they are doing the same thing as those who have taken vows or dedicated thier lives to Srila Prabhupada. That's all.

I agree any qualified individual or lineage is fine or that formal initiation takes place in the heart, etc., only that there is something ethereal or spiritual that takes place during initiation, something we can't feel or touch or see, thus even if initiation took place in the heart, it is often self evident by one who has genuinely considered themselves initiated. They would be living the lifestyle too, of a surrendered disciple. Hope this clears things up.

YS,

Priitaa