What is the correct initiation system for ISKCON?

[Govindaram 1]

Anybody know?

[yasodanandana 0]

a candidate has to find a guru accepted by gbc as a iskcon guru

 

the candidate has to have a recommendation by the temple president of his zone or a recognized senior iskcon devotee who know him

 

if the guru agrees... he starts to use the pranama mantra of that guru (homeges to deities, bhoga offering etc.) following the 4 principles and chanting 16 rounds of HK a day... collaborating and "beeing visible", if possible, within an iskcon temple or nama hatta

 

after at least 6 months , if the guru agrees, he can take harinama initiation

 

speaking of times the current custom is to contact and serve a guru for 6 months then get the permission to use pranama mantra... then after 6 months initiation

 

please correct me if i am wrong

 

(i have iskcon laws somewhere in the hd.... but where?)

[Guest guest]

Yes, that seems about right. And more people should become sincere and take Diksha (initiation from a physically present spiritual master) and keep our parampara going.

 

 

 

 

a candidate has to find a guru accepted by gbc as a iskcon guru

 

the candidate has to have a recommendation by the temple president of his zone or a recognized senior iskcon devotee who know him

 

if the guru agrees... he starts to use the pranama mantra of that guru (homeges to deities, bhoga offering etc.) following the 4 principles and chanting 16 rounds of HK a day... collaborating and "beeing visible", if possible, within an iskcon temple or nama hatta

 

after at least 6 months , if the guru agrees, he can take harinama initiation

 

speaking of times the current custom is to contact and serve a guru for 6 months then get the permission to use pranama mantra... then after 6 months initiation

 

please correct me if i am wrong

 

(i have iskcon laws somewhere in the hd.... but where?)

[theist 1]

 

Yes, that seems about right. And more people should become sincere and take Diksha (initiation from a physically present spiritual master) and keep our parampara going.

Shows no understanding of what the parampara is, reducing it to a succession of physical bodies.

[Guest guest]

Would you then say that Srila Prabhupada lacked understanding. He took initiation from a physically present guru as well.

 

 

Shows no understanding of what the parampara is, reducing it to a succession of physical bodies.

[theist 1]

 

Would you then say that Srila Prabhupada lacked understanding. He took initiation from a physically present guru as well.

That is another misdirection. Actually he himself said his intiation came at the first meeting with Bhaktisiddhanta and then he took formal initiation some 11 years later. IOW's he was initiated before he was "initiated" formally.

 

Think of the Parampara as a current of transcendental sound. there is no guaruntee the body before you on the Vyasaasana is actually speaking transcendental sound even though he is said to be a disciple of Srila Prabhupada. Only Krsna can give us the eyes to see which way this current of transcendental sound is flowing at any given time.

 

 

[...]

So anyway, from 1922 to 1933 practically I was not initiated, but I got the impression of preaching Caitanya Mahäprabhu's cult. That I was thinking. And that was the initiation by my Guru Mahäräja. Then officially I was initiated in 1933 because in 1923 I left Calcutta. I started my business at Allahabad. So I was always thinking of my Guru Mahäräja, that "I met a very nice sädhu." Although I was doing business, I never forgot him. Then, in 1928, these Gauòéya Maöha people came to Allahabad during Kumbhamelä. As the Kumbhamelä is going to be held this year, a similar big Kumbhamelä was held in 1928. In those days they came to open their branch in Allahabad, and somebody recommended that "You go to..." At that time I was running on my big pharmacy and I was very well known man in Allahabad as the proprietor of the pharmacy. So somebody recommended them that "You go to Abhaya Babu. He is a very religious man. He'll help you." So when they entered my shop I was very much pleased that "These men I met in 1922, and now they have come." In this way I became reconnected. And in 1933 I was officially initiated, and my only qualification was when I was introduced to my Guru Mahäräja for initiation, so Guru Mahäräja immediately said, "Yes, I shall initiate this boy. He is very nice. He hears me very patiently. He does not go away." So that was my qualification. The high standard of philosophy which he was speaking at that time, practically I could not follow what was, he was speaking, but still, I liked to hear him. That was my hobby.[...] Hyderbad lecture 1976

[suchandra 1]

 

Anybody know?

Best to get the answer from someone who must know!

An ISKCON guru in good standing, HH Devamrita Swami. He says at his website, "Sympathy for your spiritual master is what is needed":

http://www.devaswami.com/index.php?q=node/129

 

Sympathy for your spiritual master

by His Holiness Devamrita Swami

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td bgcolor="#ffffcc" valign="top"> Listening to Prabhupada’s bhajans, I watched the synthetic drugs drip into my vein through a tube in my arm. During this two-hour daily intravenous treatment [photos], I reflected upon the austerity of accepting disciples and its weighty effects. The facts: Srila Prabhupada rescued me from the disaster of Kali-yuga. Let the whole world know that I’m simply made of his mercy. Longing to reciprocate, I’m pushing on to make his mission and Goloka my home. As a humble service to our disciplic succession and ISKCON society, I’ve taken responsibility for others, that they also may journey to life’s ultimate goal. In other words, I’ve got to have the spiritual dynamics to forge ahead not only for myself, but also for the entire ISKCON society I’m serving, and, of course, for my spiritual dependents as well. Make no mistake about it: initiating devotees is not like ambling in a forest, savoring the fresh air, and gazing at the blue sky. In case you’ve forgotten, let me remind you that your spiritual preceptor doesn’t bask in flowers, obeisances, and praise—he gets hit with some other things too. The disciples, though often unconsciously, hurl stones like negligence, impersonalism, ingratitude, and offenses. Even worse, your guru gets a dose of your sinful reactions. As recorded in a Fourth Canto purport: “Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu therefore stated that the spiritual master who plays the part of Krsna's representative has to consume all the sinful reactions of his disciple. Sometimes a spiritual master takes the risk of being overwhelmed by the sinful reactions of the disciples and undergoes a sort of tribulation due to their acceptance.” (S. bhag. 4.21.31) Yes, ladies and gentlemen, let me remind you that accepting disciples is not a piece of cake. There are real occupational hazards, as Srila Prabhupada explains throughout his lectures and books. For example: “Krsna is so powerful that He can immediately take up all the sins of others and immediately make them right. But when a living entity plays the part on behalf of Krsna, he also takes the responsibility for the sinful activities of his devotees. Therefore to become a guru is not an easy task. You see? He has to take all the poisons and absorb them. So sometimes-because he is not Krsna-sometimes there is some trouble. " (Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers, chapter 6) “Sometimes the spiritual master, after accepting a disciple, must take charge of that disciple's past sinful activities and, being overloaded, must sometimes suffer-if not fully, then partially-for the sinful acts of the disciple.” (S. bhag. 9.9.5 purport) What’s more, troubles can attack not only the guru’s physical body but also his subtle body. Just like physical pain, nightmarish dreams are a disturbance that your spiritual master must tolerate. ISKCON’s founder-acarya describes this austerity: “A devotee sometimes accepts a sinful person as his disciple, and to counteract the sinful reactions he accepts from the disciple, he has to see a bad dream. Nonetheless, the spiritual master is so kind that in spite of having bad dreams due to the sinful disciple, he accepts this troublesome business for the deliverance of the victims of Kali-yuga.” (S. bhag. 8.4.15 purport) Why would anyone want to volunteer for such peril? Why not just mind your own business, look to your own spiritual progress, and in this way deftly trek back to Godhead--unburdened by others’ hang-ups and woes? After all, doesn’t the scripture warn about accepting many disciples? Indeed, who’d want to undergo the reactions from just one—what to speak of hundreds or thousands? "Don't make many disciples," Srila Prabhupada intoned. Then he presented the other side of the initiation paradox: “But we do it because we are preaching. Never mind--let us suffer. Still we shall accept them.” (PQPA 6) In Caitanya caritamrita, he explains: “According to Srila Jiva Gosvami, a preacher has to accept many disciples to expand the cult of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.” “Accepting an unlimited number of devotees or disciples is very risky for one who is not a preacher. This is risky because when a spiritual master accepts a disciple, he naturally accepts the disciple's sinful activities and their reactions. Unless he is very powerful, he cannot assimilate all the sinful reactions of his disciples. Thus if he is not powerful, he has to suffer the consequences, for one is forbidden to accept many disciples.” (Madhya 22.118) What saves the guru is preaching. Both his preaching and that of his disciples. Otherwise, without our constant striving to expand Mahaprabhu’s sankirtan movement, why accept disciples—just for flickering, imaginary fame, comfort, and prestige? The shastra warns initiators that unless they and their followers actively preach, reactions from disciples can become a tsunami. “But for preaching work we have to accept many disciples--for expanding preaching--even if we suffer. That's a fact. The spiritual master has to take the responsibility for all the sinful activities of his disciples. Therefore to make many disciples is a risky job unless one is able to assimilate all the sins . . . .” (PQPA6) The power to assimilate the sinful reactions derives from diligent, selfless dedication to Lord Caitanya’s global mission—pure devotional service as a servant of the servant. Accepting the missionary order of his own guru as his life and soul, the guru resolves the initiation paradox. “The poor spiritual master is kind and merciful enough to accept a disciple and partially suffer for that disciple's sinful activities, but Krishna, being merciful to His servant, neutralizes the reactions of sinful deeds for the servant who engages in preaching His glories. Even mother Ganges feared the sinful reactions of the people in general and was anxious about how she would counteract the burden of these sins.” (S. bhag. 9.9.5) Our saving Grace is when, as gurus and disciples, we all preach and distribute the name, fame, qualities and pastimes of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Then Krishna will rescue us all—guru and disciple alike. “After initiation, therefore, a disciple should be extremely careful not to commit again any sinful act that might cause difficulties for himself and the spiritual master. Before the Deity, before the fire, before the spiritual master and before the Vaisnavas, the honest disciple promises to refrain from all sinful activity. Therefore he must not again commit sinful acts and thus create a troublesome situation.” (S. bhag. 8.4.15 purport) Declare it boldly to the world: An honest disciple is no ordinary person. Such meritorious souls, who cherish their initiation vows, are the actual active ingredients that push forward the entire Krishna consciousness movement. Year after year, decade after decade, such men and women of character and integrity hold tight to their promise—and see the result. “We should be very much cautious: ‘For my sinful actions my spiritual master will suffer, so I'll not commit even a pinch of sinful activities.’ That is the duty of the disciple. After initiation, all sinful reaction is finished. Now if he again commits sinful activities, his spiritual master has to suffer. A disciple should be sympathetic and consider this: ‘For my sinful activities, my spiritual master will suffer’." (PQPA 6)

 

[

dass blog]

 

</td> <td bgcolor="#ffffcc" width="10">

</td> <td bgcolor="#660000" width="1">

</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" rowspan="2" valign="bottom"></td> <td bgcolor="#ffffcc" height="10" valign="bottom">

</td> <td colspan="2" rowspan="2" valign="bottom"></td> </tr> <tr> <td bgcolor="#660000" height="1" valign="bottom">

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

<!-- end content --><!-- end main content --><!-- mainContent -->

[theist 1]

I see it like a glass of water. When I ask for a glass of water to satisfy my thirst I am not really interested in the glass. The essential thing needed is the water.

 

Does an empty glass have any value. One could also cup one's hand and drink from a stream with no formal glass. The test is the water itself. Does it quench my thirst? This is what we need to appreciate.

 

Nothing wrong with drinking from a glass as long as it is full. The tradition is nice and helpful. Pointless to be against the formality. It keeps a certain structure in the spiritual community but let's just not lose sight of the essence.

[Guest guest]

If that is the case, then why did Srila Prabhupada see the need to take formal diksha? Why didn't he just leave it at that considering himself initiated?

Srila Prabhupada set the example. It doesn't help going around preaching the opposite.

 

One is free to believe what one wants but it doesn't make it right.

 

 

That is another misdirection. Actually he himself said his intiation came at the first meeting with Bhaktisiddhanta and then he took formal initiation some 11 years later. IOW's he was initiated before he was "initiated" formally.

 

Think of the Parampara as a current of transcendental sound. there is no guaruntee the body before you on the Vyasaasana is actually speaking transcendental sound even though he is said to be a disciple of Srila Prabhupada. Only Krsna can give us the eyes to see which way this current of transcendental sound is flowing at any given time.

 

 

[...]

So anyway, from 1922 to 1933 practically I was not initiated, but I got the impression of preaching Caitanya Mahäprabhu's cult. That I was thinking. And that was the initiation by my Guru Mahäräja. Then officially I was initiated in 1933 because in 1923 I left Calcutta. I started my business at Allahabad. So I was always thinking of my Guru Mahäräja, that "I met a very nice sädhu." Although I was doing business, I never forgot him. Then, in 1928, these Gauòéya Maöha people came to Allahabad during Kumbhamelä. As the Kumbhamelä is going to be held this year, a similar big Kumbhamelä was held in 1928. In those days they came to open their branch in Allahabad, and somebody recommended that "You go to..." At that time I was running on my big pharmacy and I was very well known man in Allahabad as the proprietor of the pharmacy. So somebody recommended them that "You go to Abhaya Babu. He is a very religious man. He'll help you." So when they entered my shop I was very much pleased that "These men I met in 1922, and now they have come." In this way I became reconnected. And in 1933 I was officially initiated, and my only qualification was when I was introduced to my Guru Mahäräja for initiation, so Guru Mahäräja immediately said, "Yes, I shall initiate this boy. He is very nice. He hears me very patiently. He does not go away." So that was my qualification. The high standard of philosophy which he was speaking at that time, practically I could not follow what was, he was speaking, but still, I liked to hear him. That was my hobby.[...] Hyderbad lecture 1976

[theist 1]

 

If that is the case, then why did Srila Prabhupada see the need to take formal diksha? Why didn't he just leave it at that considering himself initiated?

Srila Prabhupada set the example. It doesn't help going around preaching the opposite.

 

One is free to believe what one wants but it doesn't make it right.

 

No he simply followed the tradition. And if we learn to hear correctly we will see he never preached formal intiation was the essence.

 

Also IMO he had to emphasised the formal rites a little more due to the nature of the audience and social climate of the times. The hippy era. There would have been hundreds proclaiming themselves internal initiated by Prabhupada teaching and do all sorts of whacky stuff as anyone old enough to remember those times can attest.

 

Besides we are in the material world which itself is just a reflection of reality. When we offer bhoga to Krsna the real thing is the love and devotion and not the veggies yet we offer the veggies also and not just an empty plate. It is not an offering to just put some veggies on a plate and then place the plate before a picture of Krsna.

 

Sadhana is by necessity working through the body which we think we are because we cannot stop doing something throught he body even for a moment.

 

It's really not so tricky to understand this.

[Guest guest]

Theist prabhu ... your post makes sense but we'll need to confirm that the hippies' mentality was indeed the reason Srila Prabhupada chose to introduce the formal process.

 

Another question is ... if one reads the books of 2 different Acaryas or hears their lectures (lets say Acaryas belonging to different Sampradayas), does he become the disciple of both the Acaryas, thereby being part of both Sampradayas at the same time?!

 

 

No he simply followed the tradition. And if we learn to hear correctly we will see he never preached formal intiation was the essence.

 

Also IMO he had to emphasised the formal rites a little more due to the nature of the audience and social climate of the times. The hippy era. There would have been hundreds proclaiming themselves internal initiated by Prabhupada teaching and do all sorts of whacky stuff as anyone old enough to remember those times can attest.

 

Besides we are in the material world which itself is just a reflection of reality. When we offer bhoga to Krsna the real thing is the love and devotion and not the veggies yet we offer the veggies also and not just an empty plate. It is not an offering to just put some veggies on a plate and then place the plate before a picture of Krsna.

 

Sadhana is by necessity working through the body which we think we are because we cannot stop doing something throught he body even for a moment.

 

It's really not so tricky to understand this.

[suchandra 1]

 

Theist prabhu ... your post makes sense but we'll need to confirm that the hippies' mentality was indeed the reason Srila Prabhupada chose to introduce the formal process.

 

Another question is ... if one reads the books of 2 different Acaryas or hears their lectures (lets say Acaryas belonging to different Sampradayas), does he become the disciple of both the Acaryas, thereby being part of both Sampradayas at the same time?!

 

More evidence:

 

Srila Prabhupada: When you read the Bible, you are following the spiritual master. How can you say "without a spiritual master"? As soon as you read the Bible, that means you are following the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ. That means you are following the spiritual master. So where is the opportunity of being without the spiritual master?

Disciple: I was referring to a living spiritual master.

Srila Prabhupada: There is no question of whether the spiritual master is "living". The spiritual master is eternal.

Now, your question was what to do "without the spiritual master." Without the spiritual master you cannot be, at any stage of your life. You may accept this spiritual master or that spiritual master. That is a different thing. But you have to accept.

When you say "reading the Bible," that means you are following the spiritual master, represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ.

So in any case, you have to follow the spiritual master. There cannot be the question of "without the spiritual master." Is that clear?

Disciple: I mean, for instance, we couldn't understand the teachings of <CITE>Bhagavad-gita</CITE> without your help, Srila Prabhupada, without your representation.

Srila Prabhupada: Similarly, you have to understand the Bible with the help of Christ and the priest in the church.

Disciple: Yes, but is the priest receiving a good interpretation from his disciplic succession or his bishop? Because there seems to be some kind of discrepancy in the interpretation of the Bible. There are many different sects of Christianity that interpret the Bible in different ways.

Srila Prabhupada: Of course, there cannot be any interpretation of the Bible. Then the Bible itself has no authority. It is just like the old saying, "Call a spade a spade." Now, if someone calls it something else, that is another thing. He's not a spiritual master.

For instance, this is a watch. Everybody has called it a watch. But if I called it a spectacle, then what is the value of my being a so-called spiritual master? I'm misleading. [laughter] "It is a watch." That I must say.

So when someone makes some misrepresentation, he's not a bona fide spiritual master. Reject such a spiritual master immediately.

That intelligence you must have: Who is a pseudo spiritual master and who is a real spiritual master? Otherwise you'll be cheated. And that is being done. Everyone is interpreting in his own way.

The <CITE>Bhagavad-gita</CITE>... there are thousands of editions, and all of them have tried to interpret in their own way. All nonsense. They should all be thrown away. Simply you have to read <CITE>Bhagavad-gita</CITE> as it is. Then you'll understand.

There is no question of interpretation. Then the authority is gone. As soon as you interpret, there is no authority. Take a law book. Do you mean to say that in court, if you say before the judge, "My dear lord, I interpret this passage in this way," it will be accepted? The judge will at once say, "Who are you to interpret? You have no right." After all, thne what would be the authority of the law book if everyone came and said, "I interpret in this way"?

When is interpretation required? When a thing is not understood. If I say "This is a watch" and everyone understands that "This is a watch, yes," then where is the opportunity of interpreting that "This is a spectacle"?

So unnecessary interpretation is not required, and that is not bona fide. And those who are interpreting unnecessarily—they should be rejected immediately. Immediately, without any consideration.

This exchange between His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and some of his disciples took place in Seattle, Washington, on October 10, 1968.

[Guest guest]

Note that Srila Prabhupada says "That means you are following <B><I> the </B></I>spiritual master", he doesn't say "That means you are following <B><I> your </B></I>spiritual master"

 

That is the difference.

 

 

More evidence:

 

Srila Prabhupada: When you read the Bible, you are following the spiritual master. How can you say "without a spiritual master"? As soon as you read the Bible, that means you are following the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ. That means you are following the spiritual master. So where is the opportunity of being without the spiritual master?

Disciple: I was referring to a living spiritual master.

Srila Prabhupada: There is no question of whether the spiritual master is "living". The spiritual master is eternal.

Now, your question was what to do "without the spiritual master." Without the spiritual master you cannot be, at any stage of your life. You may accept this spiritual master or that spiritual master. That is a different thing. But you have to accept.

When you say "reading the Bible," that means you are following the spiritual master, represented by some priest or some clergyman in the line of Lord Jesus Christ.

So in any case, you have to follow the spiritual master. There cannot be the question of "without the spiritual master." Is that clear?

Disciple: I mean, for instance, we couldn't understand the teachings of <CITE>Bhagavad-gita</CITE> without your help, Srila Prabhupada, without your representation.

Srila Prabhupada: Similarly, you have to understand the Bible with the help of Christ and the priest in the church.

Disciple: Yes, but is the priest receiving a good interpretation from his disciplic succession or his bishop? Because there seems to be some kind of discrepancy in the interpretation of the Bible. There are many different sects of Christianity that interpret the Bible in different ways.

Srila Prabhupada: Of course, there cannot be any interpretation of the Bible. Then the Bible itself has no authority. It is just like the old saying, "Call a spade a spade." Now, if someone calls it something else, that is another thing. He's not a spiritual master.

For instance, this is a watch. Everybody has called it a watch. But if I called it a spectacle, then what is the value of my being a so-called spiritual master? I'm misleading. [laughter] "It is a watch." That I must say.

So when someone makes some misrepresentation, he's not a bona fide spiritual master. Reject such a spiritual master immediately.

That intelligence you must have: Who is a pseudo spiritual master and who is a real spiritual master? Otherwise you'll be cheated. And that is being done. Everyone is interpreting in his own way.

The <CITE>Bhagavad-gita</CITE>... there are thousands of editions, and all of them have tried to interpret in their own way. All nonsense. They should all be thrown away. Simply you have to read <CITE>Bhagavad-gita</CITE> as it is. Then you'll understand.

There is no question of interpretation. Then the authority is gone. As soon as you interpret, there is no authority. Take a law book. Do you mean to say that in court, if you say before the judge, "My dear lord, I interpret this passage in this way," it will be accepted? The judge will at once say, "Who are you to interpret? You have no right." After all, thne what would be the authority of the law book if everyone came and said, "I interpret in this way"?

When is interpretation required? When a thing is not understood. If I say "This is a watch" and everyone understands that "This is a watch, yes," then where is the opportunity of interpreting that "This is a spectacle"?

So unnecessary interpretation is not required, and that is not bona fide. And those who are interpreting unnecessarily—they should be rejected immediately. Immediately, without any consideration.

This exchange between His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and some of his disciples took place in Seattle, Washington, on October 10, 1968.

[theist 1]

 

Theist prabhu ... your post makes sense but we'll need to confirm that the hippies' mentality was indeed the reason Srila Prabhupada chose to introduce the formal process.

 

NOT INTRODUCE but the emphasis was there. Innermost teachings could come later in the natural course of the process. This is only my take on things and I could very easily be off the mark.

 

Although I am anything but a follower of tradition I certainly see the place for it and the good that comes from it. I also see how it mistakenly gets confused with the real purpose but what can be done. We are beginners and we will undoubtly misunderstand almost anything and everything the devotee initially says to us but if we keep going the wrinkles will get ironed out eventually.

[Guest guest]

 

Yes, that seems about right. And more people should become sincere and take Diksha (initiation from a physically present spiritual master) and keep our parampara going.

 

Not all acaryas in the Brahma sampradaya are in diksa succession.

Thakura Bhaktivinoda was not official Spiritual Master of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja. Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja was already renounced order, Paramahamsa, but Thakura Bhaktivinoda, while He was even playing the part of a householder, was treated by Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja as Preceptor, on account of His highly elevated spiritual understanding, and thus He was always treating Him as His Spiritual Master. The Spiritual Master is divided into two parts; namely, siksa guru and diksa guru. So officially Bhaktivinoda Thakura was like siksa guru of Gaura Kisora das Babaji Maharaja

[Guruvani 0]

Vedic culture was a very rich culture with a religious system that was saturated with rites, rituals, sacrifices, formalities, art, science, philosophy and mysticism.

 

Formal initiation is about cultural richness and religious rites.

 

In previous ages these rites and rituals meant a lot more than they do in Kali-yuga and therefore there is really only ONE religious practice that is approved for the age of Kali and that is Sankirtan Yajna.

 

The scriptures clearly state that the only sacrifice that really has any validity in Kali-Yuga is Harinama Sankirtan.

 

The formal rituals are deeply rooted in Indian culture and the Goswamis of Vrindavan tried to present the sect of Mahaprabhu with some similarities to the smarta system that was prominent in India in their time.

 

They did this as a time and circumstance necessity, but factually the movement of Mahaprabhu was totally independent of the Vedas and the smarta religious system that was prominent in India at that time.

 

Vraja bhakti in the Vedas?

Vraja bhakti in the Upanishads?

Vraja bhakti in the Vedanta Sutra?

 

Honestly, we are only fooling ourselves and playing the game when we try to present the movement of Mahaprabhu as some Vedic system that is akin to smarta-ism.

 

The Goswamis introduced these smarta rituals into the movement as a trick tactic to minimize the opposition from the smarta community which was very pervasive in India at that time.

 

It was a scheme.

It was a trick.

It was a farce in reality.

 

There is only ONE Yuga Dharma and one genuine spiritual practice in this age and it is Harinama Sankirtan.

 

All these rites and rituals are just carry-overs from a previous age and they really mean NOTHING in the age of Kali.

 

Rites and rituals are a lovely social affair, but that is about the end of it.

 

There is NOTHING but the Maha-mantra in this age.

Everything else is playgames and profiling.

[Guest guest]

This is precisely when I said we need to confirm. Because some of us have the tendency to speculate without correctly understanding.

 

 

This is only my take on things and I could very easily be off the mark.

[Guest guest]

I agree but not all of us are on the level of the Acaryas you mention below. So let's not imitate.

 

 

Not all acaryas in the Brahma sampradaya are in diksa succession.

Thakura Bhaktivinoda was not official Spiritual Master of Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja. Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja was already renounced order, Paramahamsa, but Thakura Bhaktivinoda, while He was even playing the part of a householder, was treated by Gaura Kisora dasa Babaji Maharaja as Preceptor, on account of His highly elevated spiritual understanding, and thus He was always treating Him as His Spiritual Master. The Spiritual Master is divided into two parts; namely, siksa guru and diksa guru. So officially Bhaktivinoda Thakura was like siksa guru of Gaura Kisora das Babaji Maharaja

[Guest guest]

Prabhu ... some of your statements are just wild speculation. The other statments, I agree with but the speculative ones, I have to reject.

 

 

Vedic culture was a very rich culture with a religious system that was saturated with rites, rituals, sacrifices, formalities, art, science, philosophy and mysticism.

 

Formal initiation is about cultural richness and religious rites.

 

In previous ages these rites and rituals meant a lot more than they do in Kali-yuga and therefore there is really only ONE religious practice that is approved for the age of Kali and that is Sankirtan Yajna.

 

The scriptures clearly state that the only sacrifice that really has any validity in Kali-Yuga is Harinama Sankirtan.

 

The formal rituals are deeply rooted in Indian culture and the Goswamis of Vrindavan tried to present the sect of Mahaprabhu with some similarities to the smarta system that was prominent in India in their time.

 

They did this as a time and circumstance necessity, but factually the movement of Mahaprabhu was totally independent of the Vedas and the smarta religious system that was prominent in India at that time.

 

Vraja bhakti in the Vedas?

Vraja bhakti in the Upanishads?

Vraja bhakti in the Vedanta Sutra?

 

Honestly, we are only fooling ourselves and playing the game when we try to present the movement of Mahaprabhu as some Vedic system that is akin to smarta-ism.

 

The Goswamis introduced these smarta rituals into the movement as a trick tactic to minimize the opposition from the smarta community which was very pervasive in India at that time.

 

It was a scheme.

It was a trick.

It was a farce in reality.

 

There is only ONE Yuga Dharma and one genuine spiritual practice in this age and it is Harinama Sankirtan.

 

All these rites and rituals are just carry-overs from a previous age and they really mean NOTHING in the age of Kali.

 

Rites and rituals are a lovely social affair, but that is about the end of it.

 

There is NOTHING but the Maha-mantra in this age.

Everything else is playgames and profiling.

[theist 1]

 

This is precisely when I said we need to confirm. Because some of us have the tendency to speculate without correctly understanding.

 

Please don't lose the context in which I wrote those words. I was speaking about Srila Prabhupada's motivations. It has become quite the bad habit for people to speak in authoritarian voice about "what Srila Prabhupada really meant when he said this" or "what he really had in mind when he did this".

 

I think it would be a good idea to curb this bad habit right now. We may have our opimioms but they should be labeled as such.

[Guest guest]

The phrase 'correct initiation system' is ironic. Initiation is a spiritual process moved by spiritual forces - not a system, not a bureaucracy. Currently ISKCON has provided a large selection of utility gurus that can 'turn out' devotees on their institutional assembly line. They are appointed by committee which is almost a sufficient basis for rejecting them.

So the question about initiation begs a deeper question.

The topic should be the 'correct process for becoming guru'.

[Guruvani 0]

Really, the "traditional gurus" are also pumping out a fair share of generic cookie-cutter disciples with their money-machine of "formal diksha" and unleasing a horde of pseudo disciples on the international Vaishnava community with orders to go out and disturb the mission of Srila Prabhupada as far as possible.

 

Just as in the past, the business of "traditional diksha" is still alive and well and raking in the bucks for career gurus who subsist off of the hard work and donations of naive and gullible neophytes who are easily taken advantage of.

 

These "traditional initiations" aren't producing any special breed of "super devotee".

 

They are no better than ritvik devotees.

 

The only difference is that they are fanatic and arrogant and suffering from severe superiority complex which is actually obstructing their spiritual advancement.

[Shakti-Fan 0]

 

 

....They are no better than ritvik devotees.

 

The only difference is that they are fanatic and arrogant and suffering from severe superiority complex which is actually obstructing their spiritual advancement.

 

Please, why don't you at least act as if you are practicing trnadapi sunicena. It may have an aspect of pretense but if you get in the habit then it might really happen. Beggar Prabhu called you the "shock jock of the Gaudiya internet." Its impossible to to be humble in the mood of trnadapi sunicena and be a "shock jock", unless you are an empowered acarya smashing all misconceptions. I don't think that you are quite ready to kick on the face of everyone who holds some misconception or imitating nature. If one takes this postion prematurely, they cannot know the inner mood of such a thing, and nor do I pretend to know except perhaps on the intellectual level. If we imitate this "kicking on the face" mood of Vrndavana das Thakur and Srila Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada we run the risk of becoming grotesque imitationists gradually drowning in the morass of Vaisnava and other aparadhas. Everyone of us must be continually reminded that we are deeply conditioned to viewing the world in a very external way. This generally manifests in having difficulty accepting that we are the cause of our own suffering and this is the greatest problem that neophyte devotees have, yes...no matter what camp they externally appear to be in at the present time.

[Guruvani 0]

 

Please, why don't you at least act as if you are practicing trnadapi sunicena. It may have an aspect of pretense but if you get in the habit then it might really happen. Beggar Prabhu called you the "shock jock of the Gaudiya internet." Its impossible to to be humble in the mood of trnadapi sunicena and be a "shock jock", unless you are an empowered acarya smashing all misconceptions. I don't think that you are quite ready to kick on the face of everyone who holds some misconception or imitating nature. If one takes this postion prematurely, they cannot know the inner mood of such a thing, and nor do I pretend to know except perhaps on the intellectual level. If we imitate this "kicking on the face" mood of Vrndavana das Thakur and Srila Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada we run the risk of becoming grotesque imitationists gradually drowning in the morass of Vaisnava and other aparadhas. Everyone of us must be continually reminded that we are deeply conditioned to viewing the world in a very external way. This generally manifests in having difficulty accepting that we are the cause of our own suffering and this is the greatest problem that neophyte devotees have, yes...no matter what camp they externally appear to be in at the present time.

 

Sorry, but I am just through with the onslaught of of the "traditional diksha" people that have been running ritvik into the ground for years and deceptively trying to make false propaganda that a gang of ISKCON rejects invented the ritvik method, when in fact it was developed and implemented by Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhar Maharaja as well.

 

As long as these people persist to make this false propaganda and attack and decry an important contribution that Srila Prabhupada and Srila Sridhar Maharaja made to the welfare of the Krishna conciousness movement, then I will continue to try broadcast the truth that in fact ritvik was established by the authorized acharyas and is very legitimate.

[muralidhar_das 0]

Bon Maharaj gave diksa to Sadananda as a ritvik in London, before Sadananda went to India. The Ritvik procedure was utilized by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarawati Thakura. 300 years earlier, Syamananda Thakura gave initiation through ritvik representativs. Syamananda Thakur had over 250,000 disciples.

 

Bhakti Saranga Goswami, also in London in the late 1930's, gave diksa to one disciple.

 

Bon Maharaj was authorised to be a ritvik. Bhakti Saranga Goswami was told by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarawati Thakura that he could give diksa.