One can learn even without Diksha. Then why is Guru Diksha so important???

[Guest guest]

The diksa requirement as a formal institutional religious ritual has done nothing but tear apart ISKCON and the Gaudiya Math. It has brought more offense, conflict and chaos than self-realization.

 

If that is the meaning of initiation, then bhaktas and first initiation disciples are wasting their time.

The paramapara in fact is not a diksa succession.

Padmanabha Tirtha, Nrihari Tirtha, Madhava Tirtha and Aksobhya Tirtha were all direct diksha (initiated) disciples of Madhva. They were not successive links in the diksha chain. Yet Baladeva Vidyabhushana states they were disciples of each other. These are all undisputable siksha links, as are several other links in the parampara he mentions. There are also gaps in the list given by Baladeva, as in the list given by Srila Saraswati Thakur where only the most prominent spiritual masters are mentioned.

 

So there isn't a simple linear diksa succession, considering the alleged vital importance of diksa.

If I could be convinced of the non-negotiable importance of such a formal process I would stop my sadhana immediately, since I have discovered no proper bona fide spiritual master in ISKCON to date (pure devotee).

[Guest guest]

"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." (Srila Prabhupada, October 16, 1976, Chandigarh)

 

Indeed, the so-called "formal" ceremony actually has no meaning unless it is preceded by the "real" initiation - the surrender to the transmission of knowledge from the Guru:

 

"The official initation has no meaning unless one who has fully surrendered to guru. There is no question of initiation. “Dibya-jnana hrdi prokasito" (Srila Prabhupada S.B. lecture, New Vrindavana 1974)

[Guruvani 0]

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Madhya 8.128 purport,

 

 

Sometimes a Vaiṣṇava who is a bhajanānandī does not take the sāvitra-saḿskāra (sacred thread initiation), but this does not mean that this system should be used for preaching work. There are two kinds of Vaiṣṇavas — bhajanānandī and goṣṭhy-ānandī. A bhajanānandī is not interested in preaching work, but a goṣṭhy-ānandī is interested in spreading Kṛṣṇa consciousness to benefit the people and increase the number of Vaiṣṇavas. A Vaiṣṇava is understood to be above the position of a brāhmaṇa. As a preacher, he should be recognized as a brāhmaṇa; otherwise there may be a misunderstanding of his position as a Vaiṣṇava. However, a Vaiṣṇava brāhmaṇa is not selected on the basis of his birth but according to his qualities.

[Guruvani 0]

 

 

"The official initation has no meaning unless one who has fully surrendered to guru. There is no question of initiation. “Dibya-jnana hrdi prokasito" (Srila Prabhupada S.B. lecture, New Vrindavana 1974)

 

The anti-ritviks are always boasting about formal diksha from the "living guru" being so essential, but the fact is that real diksha only happens when one gives everything; body, mind and soul to the guru.

 

So, really their formal diksha from the "living guru" is just as much a fraud as anything if in fact they do not surrender completely - body, mind and soul to the spiritual master.

 

They always emphasize that one must approach the spiritual master and inquire submissively, but most of the disciples of the "living guru" don't get much more than a couple words in to the "living guru" then he is off on the jet to some other part of the world to initiate another crop of disciples that he quickly leaves behind without the direct association and instruction that they say is so all-important.

 

So, really the living guru is always proving his own "living guru" theory as wrong by his own behaviour.

 

either that, or he is just a hypocrit.

[Beggar 0]

 

"The official initation has no meaning unless one who has fully surrendered to guru. There is no question of initiation. “Dibya-jnana hrdi prokasito" (Srila Prabhupada S.B. lecture, New Vrindavana 1974)

To quote this or paraphrase this is repeating the words of the spiritual master. But the post is really your purport to the above quote.

 

 

The anti-ritviks...

 

Let's drop the ritvik part and make this universal...

 

 

...are always boasting about formal diksha from the "living guru" being so essential, but the fact is that real diksha only happens when one gives everything; body, mind and soul to the guru.

 

So, really their formal diksha from the "living guru" is just as much a fraud as anything if in fact they do not surrender completely - body, mind and soul to the spiritual master.

 

They always emphasize that one must approach the spiritual master and inquire submissively, but most of the disciples of the "living guru" don't get much more than a couple words in to the "living guru" then he is off on the jet to some other part of the world to initiate another crop of disciples that he quickly leaves behind without the direct association and instruction that they say is so all-important.

 

So, really the living guru is always proving his own "living guru" theory as wrong by his own behaviour.

 

either that, or he is just a hypocrit.

This could have been written by an opponent of Srila Prabhupada in 1974. You don't remember the preaching at that time?

[Guruvani 0]

 

To quote this or paraphrase this is repeating the words of the spiritual master. But the post is really your purport to the above quote.

 

 

 

Let's drop the ritvik part and make this universal...

 

 

This could have been written by an opponent of Srila Prabhupada in 1974. You don't remember the preaching at that time?

My point is that at least in ISKCON there was a system for new devotees to get proper training by senior devotees in the temple.

 

When I got initiated in 1975 it was getting quite difficult to qualify for initiation and the ISKCON authorities were getting very strict about it.

You had to be a sold out devotee serving full time under strict supervision.

 

Some of these "living gurus" today initiate lots of disciples who are not in a position to get proper training and are not being strictly disciplined in an authority stucture.

 

Their disciples are always saying how important it is to have a living guru, yet they take diksha from him after only seeing him a couple of times and not getting all the personal attention they claim is so important in the "living guru" system.

 

In other words, the 'living guru" is cheating his disciples because he hasn't given them any personal attention that amounts to anything and he hasn't provided for them to get proper training from senior devotees either.

 

In ISKCON you had to be sold out to get diksha. At least that was the standard in most major temples.

 

Nowadays, these "living gurus" are giving out diksha to devotees that are obediant to no system of authority at all and whose conduct and activities cannot be verified in strict association of the devotees.

[Guest guest]

Exactly! And that's why the ritvik theory is concocted without any basis in

sastra.

 

Diksa guru is absolutely important, no matter which way the riviks spin their manufactured theory.

 

 

To quote this or paraphrase this is repeating the words of the spiritual master. But the post is really your purport to the above quote.

 

 

 

Let's drop the ritvik part and make this universal...

 

 

This could have been written by an opponent of Srila Prabhupada in 1974. You don't remember the preaching at that time?

[Guruvani 0]

 

Exactly! And that's why the ritvik theory is concocted without any basis in

sastra.

 

Diksa guru is absolutely important, no matter which way the riviks spin their manufactured theory.

 

duh...........

 

What the authorized acharyas give IS shastra.

 

Diksha guru is not absolutely important.

That is a myth.

 

Diksha guru is not as important as a genuine siksha guru.

 

The diksha guru scam has run it's course.

 

It's time for the truth to be told now.

[Guest guest]

It's so obvious that the merely formal diksa is not generally efficacious. The number of even twice initiated disciples that have fallen down, not to mention their gurus, leaves no credibility whatsoever to the supposed absolute necessity of the requirement. What we are presented with is a religious structure , a shell as it were, for displaying rites and rituals - a priesthood. Beyond that it is anybody's guess what it all has to do with bhakti, spiritual advancement and Krsna consciousness. The shell rattles with spiritual inadequacy.

[Guruvani 0]

 

It's so obvious that the merely formal diksa is not generally efficacious. The number of even twice initiated disciples that have fallen down, not to mention their gurus, leaves no credibility whatsoever to the supposed absolute necessity of the requirement. What we are presented with is a religious structure , a shell as it were, for displaying rites and rituals - a priesthood. Beyond that it is anybody's guess what it all has to do with bhakti, spiritual advancement and Krsna consciousness. The shell rattles with spiritual inadequacy.

Nicely said......

Because if it were absolutely required it would have to be absolutely effective which it has been shown not to be in many, many cases.

 

The parrots of the diksha guru theory are all the proof we need that it is for the most part an external ritual with very little residual effect.

[Beggar 0]

 

Nicely said......

Because if it were absolutely required it would have to be absolutely effective which it has been shown not to be in many, many cases.

 

The parrots of the diksha guru theory are all the proof we need that it is for the most part an external ritual with very little residual effect.

I Always thought, from what I've heard that real initiation takes place when the bhakti lata bija or seed of transcendental devotion is planted in the heart. If the seeds sometimes fall on dry desert like soil, what can be done? We are told in Caitanya Caritamrta that we can water the seed of devotion by hearing and chanting. If we don't hear then what will we chant? Simultaneously it is advised that we become good gardeners and pull the weeds of anarthas or unwanted things so that the creeper of bhakti does not get chocked out. If there is evidence that some individuals or even many have not properly watered the seed that they have been given and or have not properly removed the weeds, then how does this reflect negatively upon the seed giver, the seed giving process and the instructions given to grow the seed? Srila Sridhar Maharaja says that, "a man is known by his ideal." What kind of attitude is it to trash this part of the ideal, and sometimes other parts as well? Again Srila Sridhar Maharaja says, "I am a faith maker not a faith breaker." He was, "a form breaker, not a form maker", yet he gave what you call "formal diksa".

[muralidhar_das 0]

Just a bit of history, here.

 

I saw Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada during three visits to Australia in the ealy 70's. I also wrote to Prabhupada, and in a letter he told me "chant hare krishna, follow the four regs, thoroughly read and assmilate my books" and some other instructions. I still have the letter.

 

When I went to Srila Sridhar Maharaj I asked him

 

"What is the difference between being told by a suddha-vaishnava to chant Hare Krishna and getting initiation into the Hare Krishna mantra from that Vaishnava?"

 

I was feeling that maybe I'm a disciple of Srila Prabhupada because he had, in fact, given me Hari-Nama personally, in personal instruction. And indeed I rendered personal service to him and had some one-on-one connection to him (In the video about Prabhupada in Australia you see standing beside Prabhupada and doing some various sorts of service in a section that goes on for maybe 20 minutes.)

 

Anyhow, this is the background.

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj told me that diksa is when the Guru accepts you. So unless he formally accepts you as his disciple then it is not initiation. Some kind of relationship may be there. Certainly. But you cannot just say you got diksa from some Vaishnava simply because he said to you "chant Hare Krishna". That is not diksa. Diksa involves being personally accepted as a disciple by the Guru.

 

We've all heard the story about how Narottama das Thakura was not accepted by Lokananatha Goswami in the beginning, and how Gaura Kishore das Babaji initially did not accept Saraswati Thakura. Only after repeated efforts by the prospective disciple did the Guru accept the disciple. That's the way things are.

[krsna 3]

 

Just a bit of history, here.

 

I saw Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada during three visits to Australia in the ealy 70's. I also wrote to Prabhupada, and in a letter he told me "chant hare krishna, follow the four regs, thoroughly read and assmilate my books" and some other instructions. I still have the letter.

 

When I went to Srila Sridhar Maharaj I asked him

 

I was feeling that maybe I'm a disciple of Srila Prabhupada because he had, in fact, given me Hari-Nama personally, in personal instruction. And indeed I rendered personal service to him and had some one-on-one connection to him (In the video about Prabhupada in Australia you see standing beside Prabhupada and doing some various sorts of service in a section that goes on for maybe 20 minutes.)

 

Anyhow, this is the background.

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj told me that diksa is when the Guru accepts you. So unless he formally accepts you as his disciple then it is not initiation. Some kind of relationship may be there. Certainly. But you cannot just say you got diksa from some Vaishnava simply because he said to you "chant Hare Krishna". That is not diksa. Diksa involves being personally accepted as a disciple by the Guru.

 

We've all heard the story about how Narottama das Thakura was not accepted by Lokananatha Goswami in the beginning, and how Gaura Kishore das Babaji initially did not accept Saraswati Thakura. Only after repeated efforts by the prospective disciple did the Guru accept the disciple. That's the way things are.

 

Acceptance is the tattva. is it not? The Guru must personally accept and the tutor the disciple as to make full spiritual progree with relevant instructions. Is that correct?

 

Did you receive relevant instructions from Srila Prabhupada or Srila Sridhara Maharaja that you accepted as your life and soul, i.e., that you could dedicate your whole life to execute, meditate and carry out as guru-seva?and thus make your life perfect?

[muralidhar_das 0]

Acceptance by the Guru is what was important. That is what Srila Sridhar Maharaj told me.

 

Śrī Caitanya Caritāmṛta Ādi 1.35:

mantra-guru āra yata śikṣā-guru-gaṇa

tāńhāra caraṇa āge kariye vandana

 

I first offer my respectful obeisances at the lotus feet of my initiating spiritual master and also to all my instructing spiritual masters.

[theist 1]

 

I Always thought, from what I've heard that real initiation takes place when the bhakti lata bija or seed of transcendental devotion is planted in the heart. ....

 

That is how Srila Prabhupada describes his initiation from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta.

[Guruvani 0]

 

I Always thought, from what I've heard that real initiation takes place when the bhakti lata bija or seed of transcendental devotion is planted in the heart. If the seeds sometimes fall on dry desert like soil, what can be done? We are told in Caitanya Caritamrta that we can water the seed of devotion by hearing and chanting. If we don't hear then what will we chant? Simultaneously it is advised that we become good gardeners and pull the weeds of anarthas or unwanted things so that the creeper of bhakti does not get chocked out. If there is evidence that some individuals or even many have not properly watered the seed that they have been given and or have not properly removed the weeds, then how does this reflect negatively upon the seed giver, the seed giving process and the instructions given to grow the seed? Srila Sridhar Maharaja says that, "a man is known by his ideal." What kind of attitude is it to trash this part of the ideal, and sometimes other parts as well? Again Srila Sridhar Maharaja says, "I am a faith maker not a faith breaker." He was, "a form breaker, not a form maker", yet he gave what you call "formal diksa".

 

Theoretically, diksha is supposed to be very helpful in clearing offenses to chanting Harinama. That is a fact.

 

Practically speaking, most devotees that are getting this formal diksha don't really have a deep enough understanding of the diksha mantras or a pure enough lifestyle to actually get the real benefit of the diksha mantras.

 

As such, they are really wholly dependent on the Maha-mantra for their gradual purification and the "diksha" they received doesn't really produce the effects it could if they very rigidly practiced proper sadacar.

 

So, let's be real.

 

There is a lot of fraud in much of this formal diksha going on in the movement. Most of these devotees are really not pure enough or advanced enough to really get the benefit of the diksha mantras and are really subsisting on the Maha Mantra.

 

They get these mantras and don't really get proper instruction on what they actually contain, so the the deeper insight they are supposed to be getting with the diksha mantras is not really coming.

 

Theoretically mantra diksha is supposed to enhance one's Nama bhajan, but practically speaking............ I think its mostly a superficial formality without all the magic that it is supposed to have.

 

The Panca Tattva Maha Mantra that Jagannatha das Babaji popularized is a lot more powerful and significant nowadays than the diksha mantras.

 

The Panca Tattva Maha Mantra is what is really helping devotees in purifying their Nama Bhajan more so than the diksha mantras.

 

If one gets the Panca Tattva Maha Mantra from the Vaishnava, then there is no better mantra for purifying Nama bhajan.

 

This mantra along with Maha Mantra is complete.

 

Nitai-Gaura..........

[Guruvani 0]

 

Acceptance by the Guru is what was important. That is what Srila Sridhar Maharaj told me.

 

Important for what?

In what way?

 

Mahaprabhu said that anyone who understands the science of Krishna can be guru.

 

He said even sudra can be guru if he knows the science of Krishna.

 

Do sudras have diksha?

 

Mahaprabhu has already ordered every human on the planet to accept the Holy Name and chant Maha mantra.

 

Why do we need anyone else to allow us that?

 

Following the orders of Mahaprabhu everyone in the world has the right to chant the Holy Name.

 

There is no need for anyone else to license us.

[muralidhar_das 0]

 

Important for what?

 

 

 

I asked this question:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> "What is the difference between being told by a suddha-vaishnava to chant Hare Krishna and getting initiation into the Hare Krishna mantra from that Vaishnava?"

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

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

He told me if the Guru accepts you as a disciple you are his disciple.

 

Simply having him telling you "chant hare krishna" is not the same as getting diksa

[Guruvani 0]

 

I asked this question:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> "What is the difference between being told by a suddha-vaishnava to chant Hare Krishna and getting initiation into the Hare Krishna mantra from that Vaishnava?"

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

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

He told me if the Guru accepts you as a disciple you are his disciple.

 

Simply having him telling you "chant hare krishna" is not the same as getting diksa

 

Well, fine you follow Sridhar Maharaja's version.

But, Srila Prabhupada says it like this in TLC.

 

 

The devotee who chants it becomes transcendentally situated in ecstasy and sometimes laughs, cries and dances in his ecstasy. Sometimes the unintelligent put hindrances in the path of chanting this maha-mantra, but one who is situated on the platform of love of Godhead chants the holy name loudly for all concerned. As a result, everyone becomes initiated in the chanting of the holy names -- Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, KrishnaKrishna, Hare Hare/ Hare Rama, Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare. By chanting and hearing the holy names of Krishna, a person can remember the forms and qualities of Krishna.

 

So, this is approved by Srila Prabhupada and this is what the Krishna consciousness movement is about.

[Guruvani 0]

Madhya 15.111 purport,

 

 

Whether a Vaisnava is properly initiated or not is not a subject for consideration. One may be initiated and yet contaminated by the Mayavada philosophy, but a person who chants the holy name of the Lord offenselessly will not be so contaminated. A properly initiated Vaisnava may be imperfect, but one who chants the holy name of the Lord offenselessly is all-perfect.

[Beggar 0]

Guru sadhu sastra vakya cittete koriya aikya. This is what both Srila Sridhar Maharaja and Srila Prabhupada are giving. If they are "not wholly one" that difference is not on this subject. They both gave diksa and expected their disciples to continue to chant the mantras. Sridhar Maharaja also quoted this verse from the Eleventh Canto of Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam (11.2.40):

evaḿ-vrataḥ sva-priya-nāma-kīrtyā

jātānurāgo druta-citta uccaiḥ

hasaty atho roditi rauti gāyaty

unmāda-van nṛtyati loka-bāhyaḥ

 

 

 

Here is and interesting statement:

 

1971 July 6 : "Yes, it is all right that you address me as Spiritual Father. When initiation is given, the Spiritual Master becomes the spiritual father and the gayatri mantra becomes the spiritual mother and thus second birth takes place."

Prabhupada Letters :: 1971

[Guruvani 0]

In this purport Srila Prabhupada uses "inspired" and "initiated" as being equal.

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 2.4.22 purport.

 

 

No mundane scholar can translate or reveal the true import of the Vedic mantras (hymns). They cannot be understood unless one is inspired or initiated by the authorized spiritual master.

[theist 1]

Guruvani has it going on this morning. Thank you for showing the simple, real Hare Krsna movement that too often gets covered over by the religious formalities of rites and rituals.

[Guest guest]

Great post prabhu!

 

This smashes all the ritvik misconceptions. It cannot get any more straightforward than this and coming from a truly exalted Acarya, Sridhara Maharaja. Let's see if the Prabhupada-only'ites and book-vadis can accept the words of a great Sipiritual Master or if they will continue to follow their own misconceptions. Thank you for this post!

 

<font face="monotype corsiva" size=6> <B><I>

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj told me that diksa is when the Guru accepts you. So unless he formally accepts you as his disciple then it is not initiation. Some kind of relationship may be there. Certainly. But you cannot just say you got diksa from some Vaishnava simply because he said to you "chant Hare Krishna". That is not diksa. Diksa involves being personally accepted as a disciple by the Guru. </font></B></I>

 

 

 

Just a bit of history, here.

 

I saw Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada during three visits to Australia in the ealy 70's. I also wrote to Prabhupada, and in a letter he told me "chant hare krishna, follow the four regs, thoroughly read and assmilate my books" and some other instructions. I still have the letter.

 

When I went to Srila Sridhar Maharaj I asked him

 

I was feeling that maybe I'm a disciple of Srila Prabhupada because he had, in fact, given me Hari-Nama personally, in personal instruction. And indeed I rendered personal service to him and had some one-on-one connection to him (In the video about Prabhupada in Australia you see standing beside Prabhupada and doing some various sorts of service in a section that goes on for maybe 20 minutes.)

 

Anyhow, this is the background.

 

Srila Sridhar Maharaj told me that diksa is when the Guru accepts you. So unless he formally accepts you as his disciple then it is not initiation. Some kind of relationship may be there. Certainly. But you cannot just say you got diksa from some Vaishnava simply because he said to you "chant Hare Krishna". That is not diksa. Diksa involves being personally accepted as a disciple by the Guru.

 

We've all heard the story about how Narottama das Thakura was not accepted by Lokananatha Goswami in the beginning, and how Gaura Kishore das Babaji initially did not accept Saraswati Thakura. Only after repeated efforts by the prospective disciple did the Guru accept the disciple. That's the way things are.

[theist 1]

One needn't be a disciple of a particular person. The important thing is the conclusion of the disciplic succession.