Home

Forums

Topics

Members

Tattva-viveka

reinitiation

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - July 16, 2007 11:59 am

There is discussion going on lately on Polish Vaisnava forum about reinitiation. According to one devotee (he is older devotee, living in Prabhupada Village, Kula Pavana Prabhu) reinitiation goes completely against our siddhanta. He says diksa mantra is invitation to Gaudiya Vaisnavism, and there is no need for reinitiation, because once you recive mantras you have them, so how can you recive them again? All this discussion started when few days ago Bhava Bhakti (presently Braja Sundari) recived initiation from Swami, after she was told by her diksa guru that they relationship is broken now.

Kula Pavana made this particular question (when I told him that I will try to get some answer from Swami):

"What is the actual meaning of each type of initiation in our tradition? When is it valid? What is re-initiation and when is it neccessary in our line?"

Citta Hari Dasa - July 16, 2007 6:52 pm

"What is the actual meaning of each type of initiation in our tradition? When is it valid? What is re-initiation and when is it neccessary in our line?"

This is a big topic, but I'll give short answers for now that can be elaborated upon by others (perhaps even Guru Maharaja himself) if need be.

1) Since the initiation most relevant here is diksa I'll address that. In imparting the diksa mantras the guru shares his or her faith with the disciple. Consistent practice under good guidance will ultimately yield the fruit of the disciple realizing his or her svarupa, and that (usually) is in the same rasa as the guru.

2) When is it valid? When one has faith in the guru, and when the guru is competent to help the disciple in the attainment of his or her svarupa.

3)What reinitiation is should be obvious. Reinitiation is necessary (not always, but generally) when a) the guru can no longer inspire the faith of the disciple, the guru falls down, or c) the disciple is rejected by the guru.

The entire issue hinges on sraddha. We need to be connected with a vital current, and if the disciple feels a lack of this, they will not be spiritually nourished and will thus not make progress. Regarding the case in point, if the diksa guru can't inspire the disciple, the disciple is free to take siksa from a Vaisnave who does inspire them, and if the diksa guru will not allow this, then the disciple must question whether the relationship with the diksa guru is viable, and ask to be released. Generally speaking, in the best case scenario, the diksa guru will allow the disciple to take a siksa-guru, the disciple will be spiritually nourished, and all will be fine. If, due to some misunderstanding of how guru-tattva/initiation works the diksa guru is unwilling to allow a disciple to follow the flow of their faith, then the disciple is left with few choices.

I have heard Guru Maharaja say that if a disciple comes to him and says they no longer have faith in him, he is more than willing to release them so that they can pursue their faith in another context. This is, really, the only logical thing to do; unfortunately, not all gurus see it that way and subsequently try to intimidate the disciple into remaining in a relationship where they are not happy. This is not very wise, since then the disciple is forced to either remain and make no real progress, or to just go and follow their faith without permission, which usually creates an awkward situation, at best.

Madan Gopal Das - July 16, 2007 7:20 pm

Very comprehensive answer, and representative of everything I have ever heard GM say about the matter. Very concise and clear. Since I cannot elaborate on Citta Hari's post, I will just post a collection of things GM has said in Sanga's over the years.

Q. How can a disciple, whose beloved guru is not in the best shape, avoid re-initiation?

 

A. He or she must pray for the upliftment of their Guru. That one who has helped us, we must try to help. How can we desert him? This is a noble attitude. At the same time one must be prepared to take help himself from another Vaisnava, a siksa-guru. We must try to better understand the principle of guru with sincerity and humility. We are trying to approach Krsna-prema, the highest ideal. Sometimes along the path we must adjust our position and re-focus, as knowledge is revealed.

*********************************

 

Q. A recent Sanga Q&A read, 'How can a disciple whose beloved guru is not in the best of shape, avoid re-initiation?' You answered, 'He or she must pray for the upliftment of their guru.' How can a guru be fallen or in bad shape? Common sense tells us that a siddha (pure devotee) cannot and does not fall. I'm very interested to hear your answer with quotes from Srila Prabhupada. I have also read that re-initiation is bogus. Do you have any quotes from Srila Prabhupada that support re-initiation?

 

A. Your question implies that a guru cannot fall down. However, according to Srila Prabhupada it appears that it is possible for even a mahabhagavata to fall down. He has mentioned this in relation to hearing mayavada philosophy. I quote, 'The Mayavada philosophers have presented their arguments in such attractive, flowery language that hearing Mayavada philosophy may sometimes change the mind of even a maha-bhagavata.' If a mahabhagavata's mind changes from the Vaisnava conclusions to those of the Mayavada philosophy, this is considered a falldown. What then should his disciple do?

 

Furthermore, all gurus are not uttama-adhikaris. In fact all gurus function as madhyama-adhikaris, either descending from the uttama-adhikari platform, or rising from the kanistha-adhikari platform. The ascending madhyama-adhikari guru can fall prey to maya.

 

Just what the disciple should do if his guru experiences difficulty is explained by Jiva Goswami in his Bhakti-sandarbha. In the Q&A under discussion I have given a synopsis of Sri Jiva's sampradaya teaching.

 

Please read Bhakti-sandarbha very carefully, and your understanding on all of these issues will improve. Moreover, I have answered with sensitivity to a devotee in an awkward position. He has respect for his guru, yet he knows him to be less than qualified. Let him continue to respect him for now from a distance, take shelter of a qualified siksa-guru, and get a better understanding of the principle of guru over time in good association. This is what I have recommended. Following this policy he will be heartened and gradually find shelter of a qualified guru.

 

As for being initiated a second time (what you refer to as re-initiation), this is mentioned in Caitanya Caritamrta in regard to Gadadhara Pandita, 'gadadhara-pandite tenho punah mantra dila,' 'Pundarika Vidyanidhi initiated Gadadhara Pandita for the second time.' Gadadhara felt the necessity to hear his diksa-mantra again after his mind had become polluted by offense. The details of this are found in Pundarika Vidyanidhi Vilasa, part two. In this instance Pundarika was encouraged by Mahaprabhu to hear his diksa-mantra again from his mantra-guru. Gadadhara's offense was that he gave the mantra, in the capacity of a guru, to an unqualified person. A guru can commit this offense.

 

Furthermore, Srila Prabhupada also allowed his disciple Asita dasa to be released from his status as his disciple and take initiation a second time from Bhakti Dayita Madhava Maharaja. Asita had been initially inspired by Madhava Maharaja, but later took initiation from Prabhupada. After some time his original sraddha in Madhava Maharaja pushed him in Madhava Maharaja's direction, as did the ISKCON management in Mayapur.

 

After discussing the matter of his faith with Prabhupada, Prabhupada gave him permission to take initiation from Madhava Maharaja. Part of this story is told in the following letter that Prabhupada wrote to his disciple Asita dasa.

"Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your letter and have noted the contents. If you want to stay there I have no objection. For the time being you can perform your devotional service in Puri and when I return to Mayapur in mid-March, you can see me and we shall see what was the cause for your being asked to leave. It is a big establishment and sometimes disagreement happens and I am helpless. I am inquiring from Mayapur why you were asked to leave there. If you want to take initiation from Madhava Gosvami Maharaja I have no objection.

"I hope this meets you in good health.

"Your ever well-wisher,

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami"

There is much more to say on all of this, but I would have to quote books that doubtless you would not accept (anything other than those written by Srila Prabhupada). You have requested that I limit my answer to that which can be supported by Srila Prabhupada's books.

 

I humbly suggest that all of the books from our sampradaya acaryas are not different from the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, and that one who is properly initiated, as I am, has more than one guru via this initiation.

 

Swami

***********************************************************************

 

Q. In our movement there are so many cases of re-initiation. Is it necessary to take re-initiation if ones guru leaves the movement?

 

A. In some cases accepting a siksa guru is sufficient, but if the previous guru has become an aparadhi (offender), re-initiation is necessary. This is the general rule. However, there are often extenuating circumstances, and in my experience every case needs to be dealt with individually, placing oneself in the learned and affectionate hands of a qualified devotee.

****************************************************

 

Q. In a recent Sanga ("Taking Shelter of a Bona Fide Spiritual Master") there is a question from a devotee who had been initiated by a guru who is "no longer practicing." I am in the same situation and thousands of others are as well. Therefore I took great interest in your answer but I could not understand it clearly. It appears to me that you said we should search for a competent siksa-guru, but taking diksa from him is not absolutely necessary, unless the guru himself wants to tell us the mantra. I have no doubt that one whose diksa-guru gave up spiritual practice should find a competent siksa guru but it is not clear to me whether that person should take diksa again. This question is of great importance to me and to many others so I humbly request you to explain whether it is necessary to take initiation again if one's diksa guru is "no longer practicing."

 

A. My answer to the question about initiation that you refer to is one in which I tried to be as sensitive and accommodating on this issue as possible. It is more important to begin to rebuild faith than to merely state the law. Furthermore, every case is individual.

 

Those devotees whose diksa gurus are no longer practicing--which could mean any number of things--should take guidance from a highly qualified siksa guru. Everything will follow naturally from this. If you are actually getting something valuable from the siksa, your renewed faith and genuine spiritual enthusiasm will guide you naturally to the proper conclusion. You will, that is, have found your sat guru. Go and sit at this guru's feet. However such a guru chooses to proceed with regard to initiation or re-initiation is the best course. It should be clear that the instruction here is that you should seek out a sat guru.

Swami - July 17, 2007 12:41 am

Very comprehensive answer, and representative of everything I have ever heard GM say about the matter. Very concise and clear. Since I cannot elaborate on Citta Hari's post, I will just post a collection of things GM has said in Sanga's over the years.

Gadadhara Pandit received reinitiation, gadadhara-pandite tenho punah mantra dila. So too did Syamananda. Smartas cite smriti text to support the notion that if one does not chant one's mantra for five days one must receive it again, although the Goswamis did not seem to follow this tradition. Jiva Goswami endorses reinitiation if one's guru becomes disrespectful to Vaisanvas, as Bhava-bhakti's so called guru became. Vallabha took reinitaion from Gadadhara Pandita. Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya offered to reinnitiate Mahaprabhu. Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja reinitiated many devotees who were previously initiated by fallen Iskcon gurus. Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura reinitiated Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaja in the presence of BVT, when BPT had previously taken initiation from Bipin Behari Goswami. So Kulapavana got it wrong. Probably becasue he has no guru now that Harikesa became disrespectful to Vaisnavas, etc., and thus he is left unto himself to figure it all out, or so he believes. With his logic one may as well avoid initiation altogether and just get the mantras from a book.

Syamasundara - July 17, 2007 1:10 am

The case of Syamananda pandita is quite particular, and proof that reinitiation doesn't always imply rejection or nasty stuff. He was a disciple of Hridaya Caitainya, who was no unqualified guru, but I believe he was in sakhya rasa, whereas Syamananda had developed sringara rasa while in Vrndavana.

Syamananda means he who gives joy to Syama (Syamaa, Radha, not Syaama) and he received this name by Lalita herself, who was very pleased with his service of cleaning the seva kunja. She also gave him the particular tilaka mark typical of his parivara, by touching his forehead with the anklebells that Radha had lost there previously, and that he found while cleaning.

I just thought it was a nice occasion to remember this lila.

Swami - July 17, 2007 11:31 am

The case of Syamananda pandita is quite particular, and proof that reinitiation doesn't always imply rejection or nasty stuff. He was a disciple of Hridaya Caitainya, who was no unqualified guru, but I believe he was in sakhya rasa, whereas Syamananda had developed sringara rasa while in Vrndavana.

Syamananda means he who gives joy to Syama (Syamaa, Radha, not Syaama) and he received this name by Lalita herself, who was very pleased with his service of cleaning the seva kunja. She also gave him the particular tilaka mark typical of his parivara, by touching his forehead with the anklebells that Radha had lost there previously, and that he found while cleaning.

I just thought it was a nice occasion to remember this lila.

After the events you escribe above he may aso have received mantra from Jiva Goswami. Some research required.

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - July 17, 2007 12:15 pm

I presented Kulapavana with arguments I found in this topic. Here is his replay (my translation to English):

Mentioned above examples come from the tradition, not from the sastra, and they relate to very exceptional situations. Comparing reinitiation of Syamananda Pandit from sakhya rasa to madhurya rasa to our present situation is a big misunderstanding.

In the case of disciples of fallen gurus reinitiation is something that helps them to make new relationship with new guru, and we already talked about it.

I would like to relate to this part regarding nature of diksa mantra:

"In imparting the diksa mantras the guru shares his or her faith with the disciple. Consistent practice under good guidance will ultimately yield the fruit of the disciple realizing his or her svarupa, and that (usually) is in the same rasa as the guru."

I am not sure where it comes from but it is not compatible with texts that are known to me, like for example:

Bhakti-sandarbha (Anuccheda 237): yo mantram sa gurum saksat yo guru sa hari svayam gurur yasya bhavet tustas tasya tusto harim svayam - "The mantra (which is given by the guru) is itself the guru, and the guru is directly the Supreme Lord Hari. He with whom the spiritual master is pleased also obtains the pleasure of Sri Hari Himself.” (in this verse Jiva Gosvami is quoting book Vamana Kalpa, in which speaks Lord Brahma)

Received mantra has power and identity independent from guru who gave it to us, because this mantra is manifestation of Sri Guru, or Lord Krsna.

Madan Gopal Das - July 17, 2007 1:23 pm

it is not compatible with texts that are known to me, like for example:

 

Bhakti-sandarbha (Anuccheda 237): yo mantram sa gurum saksat yo guru sa hari svayam gurur yasya bhavet tustas tasya tusto harim svayam - "The mantra (which is given by the guru) is itself the guru, and the guru is directly the Supreme Lord Hari. He with whom the spiritual master is pleased also obtains the pleasure of Sri Hari Himself.” (in this verse Jiva Gosvami is quoting book Vamana Kapla, in which speaks Lord Brahma)

This is exactly why one must have a guru in one's life, to explain the siddhanta and make sure that we get it! This devotee (without guidance of guru) is taking this verse to mean that mantra is independent of guru, is guru/krsna himself and emphasizing the first part of the verse. What about the second sentence?? Please guru, please Krsna. We are servant of servant, of servant, of servant..... Guru is not just a salesman, someone who has a stock of mantra's to get rid of and you can get one anywhere and get the same result. No, you have a relationship of service with that person, which is why the verse says that Krsna is pleasd when his devotee is pleased. Isn't it obvious???!!!

Received mantra has power and identity independent from guru who gave it to us, because this mantra is manifestation of Sri Guru, or Lord Krsna.

Just take this logic to the most extreme. If I receive the maha-mantra or brahma-gayatri from someone who is not a Gaudiya vaishnava, will I receive Vraja bhakti from that mantra? Of course not! The mantra we get has the guru's heart within it, it is coming from his/her realization. If the received mantra is independent from the guru, why not get the maha-mantra from Amma, or any guru who gives out mantras? With KP's logic you will get Krsna! That is absurd.

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - July 17, 2007 2:08 pm

Before going to work I will past this fragment:

Kula Pavana said:

"In vedic tradition you give diksa mantra only once during the lifetime. I dont see any need to change that."

My replay:

"It seems that in our tradition we had examples saying otherwise, and these examples come from direct associets of Lord Chaitania. Mahaprabhu accepted it, and I think that as a Krsna He understand vedic rules the best."

Kula Pavana's answer:

"Of course there are always exceptions, but we can not make new rules based on them. In modern times, in western Gaudiya Vaisnavism it is almost rule, that reinitiation is done so easly, without good reason. it is done by Iskcon, Tripurari Maharaja, narayana Maharaja and others.

If lord Brahma in Vamana Kalpa, and Srila Jiva Gosvami in Bhakti sandarbha say: o mantraH sa guruH sAkSAd yo guruH sa hariH svayam – "Diksa mantra is directly the teacher (guru), and it is directly Lord Hari" then all these reinitiation seem to me unnececary. I dont feel that my mantra lost its power, in spite of fact that according to some I dont have a guru.

I think that many spiritual masters in our tradition on purpose dont reveal to their disciples deeper reality of initiation and guru tattva. Perheaps they dont do that for the sake of wellbeing of their disciples. At least I hope so.

Any way, see my topic 'Akhanda Guru Tattva'"

Madan Gopal Das - July 17, 2007 2:35 pm

Kula Pavana's answer:

 

"Of course there are always exceptions, but we can not make new rules based on them. In modern times, in western Gaudiya Vaisnavism it is almost rule, that reinitiation is done so easly, without good reason. it is done by Iskcon, Tripurari Maharaja, narayana Maharaja and others.

How can he say without good reason? Faith of the disciple is the only good reason, and faith is everything. It transcends all argument and reason that KP is looking for. He wants a good reason why HE should accept the faith of others. The reason is because it is THEIR faith.

If lord Brahma in Vamana Kalpa, and Srila Jiva Gosvami in Bhakti sandarbha say: o mantraH sa guruH sAkSAd yo guruH sa hariH svayam – "Diksa mantra is directly the teacher (guru), and it is directly Lord Hari" then all these reinitiation seem to me unnececary. I dont feel that my mantra lost its power, in spite of fact that according to some I dont have a guru.

I think that many spiritual masters in our tradition on purpose doesnt reveal to their disciples deeper reality of initiation and guru tattva. Perheaps they dont do that for the sake of wellbeing of their disciples.

There could be a few reasons for a guru not revealing the deeper reality.

1) Guru does not have it. If the disciple is qualified, he/she will likely move on and take siksa from someone who does have access to that reality.

2) Disciple is not ready to receive it and therefore guru withholds.

3) Guru and disciple are in different rasa and disciple needs to cultivate rasa under different guru.

Babhru Das - July 17, 2007 4:03 pm

Kulapavana: Bhakti-sandarbha (Anuccheda 237): yo mantram sa gurum saksat yo guru sa hari svayam gurur yasya bhavet tustas tasya tusto harim svayam - "The mantra (which is given by the guru) is itself the guru, and the guru is directly the Supreme Lord Hari. He with whom the spiritual master is pleased also obtains the pleasure of Sri Hari Himself.” (in this verse Jiva Gosvami is quoting book Vamana Kalpa, in which speaks Lord Brahma)

 

Received mantra has power and identity independent from guru who gave it to us, because this mantra is manifestation of Sri Guru, or Lord Krsna.[/b]

What strikes me about this is the lack of logic. If the mantra is guru, how is it independent from guru? If I give you my heart, how is that independent from me? I'm giving you my essence!

Madan's right: the guru's not just some salesman who drops off the mantra and goes his merry way, having nothing more to do with the affair. I fear that Kula's own experience has clouded his judgment here.

And we don't need to go back three or four hundred years for examples of "reinitiation." As Swami points out, Srila Sarasvati Thakura initiated B.P Tirtha Maharaja, who had previously been initiated by Bipin Bihari Goswami, in Bhaktivinoda Thakura's immediate presence. And Srila Prabhupada himself, whom I don't doubt had been initiated by a Gaudiya vaishnava connected with his family (is there evidence for this?), took Hari-nama and mantra from Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. Gour Govinda Maharaja had also no doubt been initiated in his youth, having grown up in a good Oriya Gaudiya vaishnava family, but he took Hari-nama and mantra from Srila Prabhupada.

Syamasundara - July 17, 2007 4:14 pm

Initiation for no good reason!? How presumptuous... does it mean he deserved to be initiated, there was a good reason for him to receive.... mercy?

Citta Hari Dasa - July 17, 2007 4:18 pm

I found this a bit funny: first KP says,

"What is the actual meaning of each type of initiation in our tradition?"

[you] Mentioned above examples come from the tradition, not from the sastra,

Hmmmm.

How can he say without good reason? Faith of the disciple is the only good reason, and faith is everything. It transcends all argument and reason that KP is looking for. He wants a good reason why HE should accept the faith of others. The reason is because it is THEIR faith.

Exactly! KP want sastric citations? How about this: sraddhamayo 'yam purusah. . .

Bhrigu - July 17, 2007 4:41 pm

I've written at some lenght about reinitiation in the GV tradition in my thesis. The first GV text that deals with the topic, the Hari-bhakti-vilasa, permits it in only one instance: when a person out of ignorance (which primarily means being initiated by a family guru during childhood) had been initiated by a non-Vaishnava guru. In that case, the non-Vaishnava guru must be rejected and mantra again received from a Vaishnava guru. No other cases are allowed.

In the Bhakti-sandarbha (someone with the book at hand can look up the exact quote -- I am out in the country without any books), Jiva Goswami repeats the same statement, but goes one step further. Is it not possible that a Vaishnava guru could become a non-Vaishnava? Yes, and in that case he must be rejected. The guru can become "non-Vaishnava" by either failing to follow the basic conduct of a Vaishnava (committing sin, etc) or by slandering and reviling Vaishnavas.

These are the most important shastric statements for Gaudiya Vaishnavas on this topic. Bhaktivinoda Thakur has cited them in his Jaivadharma as well.

Syama Gopala Dasa - July 17, 2007 6:55 pm

I think much of the discussion on reinitiation is actually a discussion on the nature of initiation.

Maybe we should start helping KP clear out his doubts on that issue, instead of having to prove whether reinitiation is bonafide.

Vivek - July 17, 2007 8:09 pm

what about when a guru is in good standing officially but doesn't have the same standing in the eyes of the disciple. Is the disciple allowed to leave the guru then. Can's this policy be abused by the disciple because he just gets a mundane frustration with one guru and jumps to next then next then next. Some people did that going from JPS to NM then RKBbabajis then material life again.

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - July 17, 2007 9:52 pm

Initiation for no good reason!? How presumptuous... does it mean he deserved to be initiated, there was a good reason for him to receive.... mercy?

I just want to add (I should do it in the beginning), that Kula Pavanji is very nice devotee, and he always holds Swami and his teaching in the highest esteem. When I was asking him for advice (as older and experienced Vaisnava) about joining your sanga he was very encouraging and helpful. Our discussion about reinitiation is very gentil and polite. Dont smash him please

Nitai Joseph - July 17, 2007 10:35 pm

I don't know Kulapavana too much I've met him a few times heard his class, and heard him inquire to Guru Maharaja. It seems he is little preoccupied with "vedic lifestyle", varnashram and things like that. Hence when you cite recent (relatively) examples of reinitiation he asks for sastra, as Guru Maharaja has said sadhu is sastra that can come after us, see if we understand. So the lives of sadhus are not trumped by sastra and there can only be apparent differences to us who can not distinguish essential teachings and relative considerations. As others have already said, it's a faith issue! The disciples faith is the consideration, not tradition or anything else. Also maybe some plausible reasons reintitaition has become common in the west are 1)Sheer number of people getting involved is huge with relatively few guru's 2) The "acarya system" in which the disciple coudlnt' get intiated outside of his zone even if he had more faith elswhere, it seems like Kulapavan could have been affected by this period 3) An institutional body deciding who is guru. Not to steer this conversation away but it seems like most current "western" reinitiations are in the aftermath of a situation in ISKCON. All-in-all it's saddening that as a result of certain aparadha and conceptions of past leaders there are so many people like KP who have had to make Prabhupada their sole guide, therefore unable to see the immediate necessity of siksa and in some cases reinitiation.

Syamasundara - July 18, 2007 7:38 am

I just want to add (I should do it in the beginning), that Kula Pavanji is very nice devotee, and he always holds Swami and his teaching in the highest esteem. When I was asking him for advice (as older and experienced Vaisnava) about joining your sanga he was very encouraging and helpful. Our discussion about reinitiation is very gentil and polite. Dont smash him please

He implied that my Gurudeva doesn't know what he's doing and I reacted (I know, I sound like Vamsi), but to the statement; the thought of questioning his character as a Vaisnava didn't even cross my mind, but I am sorry if that disturbed or worried you.

Jaya Gaura bhakta vrnda.

Jananivasdas - July 18, 2007 12:56 pm

"Diksa, or initiation is more or less a formal thing; the substantial thing is siksa,

or spiritual instruction." - srila br sridhar maharaja

Swami - July 18, 2007 2:10 pm

"Diksa, or initiation is more or less a formal thing; the substantial thing is siksa,

or spiritual instruction." - srila br sridhar maharaja

This should not be taken out of context to imply that diksa is unnecessary or unimportant. Without diksa (imparting the mantra) what is the value of siksa? Similarly, what is the value of diksa without siksa? Siksa gives support to diksa. Siksa preceeds diksa and also follows diksa. The diksa guru and siksa guru are equal manifestations of Godhead with different functions. Diksa falls under sambandha tattva and siksa under abhideya tattva.

In the above quote SM is stressing the idea that diksa without siksa will not culminate in the awakening of one's spiritual identity.

Regarding Kulapavana's statement that reinitiation is the exception, not the norm, no one disagrees. He whoever seems to disagree with those more qualified then himself as to what constitutes an exception, gurus like Sridhara Maharaja who reinitiated many persons and whose lead I follow in this connection.

Kulapavana was initiated by Harikesa, who later vilified Prabhupada (his own diksa guru) and preached a new age doctrine of that constitutes appasiddhanta. Such is certainly not the norm that one would expect from a Gaudiya Vaisnava guru from whom one had taken initiation. In such exteme cases it would seem that reinitiation is essential. How could one think otherwise?

Although many reinitiations occur these days, the exception is that there happens to be many unqulified persons posing as gurus, many of whom when pressed prove themselves to be Vaisanava aparadhis. BVT labled a number of sects that claimed alligence to Mahaprabu as deviant for various reasons and thus did not consider those initiated by gurus of those sects to be actually initiated into the Gaudiya sampradya. For example, prakrita sahajiyas also initiate by imparting the kama gayatri, but BVT did not consider such initiations to be valid.

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - July 18, 2007 9:37 pm

He implied that my Gurudeva doesn't know what he's doing and I reacted (I know, I sound like Vamsi), but to the statement; the thought of questioning his character as a Vaisnava didn't even cross my mind, but I am sorry if that disturbed or worried you.

 

Jaya Gaura bhakta vrnda.

Common Syamasundar, everything is ok . Dandavats

Vamsidhari Dasa - July 19, 2007 5:03 pm

(I know, I sound like Vamsi),

I dont have anything to do with any of this ::

Vivek - July 24, 2007 4:59 am

This should not be taken out of context to imply that diksa is unnecessary or unimportant. Without diksa (imparting the mantra) what is the value of siksa? Similarly, what is the value of diksa without siksa? Siksa gives support to diksa. Siksa preceeds diksa and also follows diksa. The diksa guru and siksa guru are equal manifestations of Godhead with different functions. Diksa falls under sambandha tattva and siksa under abhideya tattva.

 

In the above quote SM is stressing the idea that diksa without siksa will not culminate in the awakening of one's spiritual identity.

Regarding Kulapavana's statement that reinitiation is the exception, not the norm, no one disagrees. He whoever seems to disagree with those more qualified then himself as to what constitutes an exception, gurus like Sridhara Maharaja who reinitiated many persons and whose lead I follow in this connection.

 

Kulapavana was initiated by Harikesa, who later vilified Prabhupada (his own diksa guru) and preached a new age doctrine of that constitutes appasiddhanta. Such is certainly not the norm that one would expect from a Gaudiya Vaisnava guru from whom one had taken initiation. In such exteme cases it would seem that reinitiation is essential. How could one think otherwise?

 

Although many reinitiations occur these days, the exception is that there happens to be many unqulified persons posing as gurus, many of whom when pressed prove themselves to be Vaisanava aparadhis. BVT labled a number of sects that claimed alligence to Mahaprabu as deviant for various reasons and thus did not consider those initiated by gurus of those sects to be actually initiated into the Gaudiya sampradya. For example, prakrita sahajiyas also initiate by imparting the kama gayatri, but BVT did not consider such initiations to be valid.

This was one incident I was recouting about srila prabhupada's pastimes. How do we understand the idea of krsna nama being unconstrained by diksha? I think BVT said initiation can be bypassed by only few souls like Jadha bharata who have already passed the preliminary stages of sadhana in previous life.

Srila Prabhupada recounted the time he was on Vrindaban parikrama with Srila Bhaktisiddhanata Saraswati, and instead of going to visit the temple of Seshasayi Vinu he stayed to hear from his gurumaharaj, Srila Bhaktisiddhanata Saraswati.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj recalled the incident and how Srila Prabhupada said to him, "What will I get if I go there?" Indicating that the real benefit is to stay and hear, and then Sridhar Maharaj replied, "Eye excercise," and they both laughed.

While Srila Prabhupada was very humble and said that he didn't understand much of what his guru spoke.

Srila Sridhar Maharaj recalls what the lecture was about. It was on a verse of Rupa Goswami:

no diksam na cha sat-kriyam na cha purascharyam manag iksate

mantro 'yam rasana-sprg eva phalati sri-krsna-namatmakah

When Krishna Nama wants to distribute Himself it is not even remotely dependent on diksam (initiation), sat-kriyam (pious activities, purascharyam (regulative practices), or any such thing. If it is Krishna's will to distribute Himself, consider it done.

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - July 24, 2007 1:17 pm

The discussion on our forum is still going on. Now Kula Pavana's point is that in modern Gaudiya Vaisnavism position of guru is exaggerated .

I asked him this question:

Maybe you would like to write what you think: what does it mean that conception of guru can be exaggerated? What do you think where we can draw border between healthy guru bhakti and deviation (personality cult)?

Kula Pavana:

Our GV siddhanta comes from Lord Chaitanya and Goswamis from Vrindavan, His associates, specially from Srila Rupa and Jiva Goswami. In their writings there is not so much stress on position and person of guru, as it is presently. You can see it very clearly. In their writings proportions are: 99% Krsna, and 1 % guru. Today it is different. I don't see it in category of deviation, but rather practical changes in sadhana. If these changes bring good results, there is no problem, but if these changes bring problems, we should rethink them and go back to former approach, that was working properly . When Rupa Goswami in Upadesamrita says:

vaco vegam manasah krodha-vegam

jihva-vegam uparopastha-vegam

etan vegan yo vishaheta dhirah

sarvam apimam prithivim sa sishyat

"A sober person who can tolerate the urge to speak, the mind's demands, the actions of anger and the urges of the tongue, belly and genitals is qualified to make disciples all over the world"

this is my understanding of guru, or at least its basic part. Second part, more mystical is characterized by Srila Jiva Goswami (Bhakti-sandarbha (Anuccheda 237)):

yo mantram sa gurum saksat yo guru sa hari svayam gurur yasya bhavet tustas tasya tusto harim svayam

"The mantra (which is given by the guru during diksa ceremony) is itself the guru, and the guru is directly the Supreme Lord Hari. He with whom the spiritual master is pleased also obtains the pleasure of Sri Hari Himself.”

Jiva Gosvami actually quotes Vamana-kalpa, where Lord Brahma explains:

yo mantrah sa guruh saksad yo guruh sa harih svayam

"One should understand that the mantra one has received from the guru is identical with the guru and that the guru is identical with Lord Hari."

************************************************

Would you like to comment? I am specially interested in your opinion about this part:

"Our GV siddhanta comes from Lord Chaitanya and Goswamis from Vrindavan, His associates, particularly from Srila Rupa and Jiva Goswami. In their writings there is not so much stress on position and person of guru, as it is presently. You can see it very clearly. In their writings proportions are: 99% Krsna, and 1 % guru. "

Nitai Joseph - July 25, 2007 3:18 am

"Our GV siddhanta comes from Lord Chaitanya and Goswamis from Vrindavan, His associates, particularly from Srila Rupa and Jiva Goswami. In their writings there is not so much stress on position and person of guru, as it is presently. You can see it very clearly. In their writings proportions are: 99% Krsna, and 1 % guru. "

This is over the top. I heard in one of Guru Maharaj's talks someone had written a paper positing that Guru kind of gets in the way of our relationship with Krishna, and GM was explaining this is a misunderstanding of sadhya (amongst other things I think). People think in Goloka we are personally associating with Krishna, but no! we are associating with Sri Guru, and maybe sometime we get some direct assignment to assist Krishna/Radha-Krishna. Ultimately Guru is Radha, is there only 1% emphasis on Radha, when our goal is Radha Dasyam??? Did Prabhupada not emphasize Guru? Anyway I'm astonished because being at Audarya so close to GM and slowly feeling more and more like he is everything for me, and the only place I need to repose my energy, is quite a contrast to this stuff.

I hope it dosen't sound wrong but as already eluded to on this thread by myself and others I think KP is suffering from haveing innocently placed his Faith in a connection that did not pan out. He could really use a Guru to help him go through all the Goswami Granthas he quotes.

Babhru Das - July 25, 2007 4:50 am

"Our GV siddhanta comes from Lord Chaitanya and Goswamis from Vrindavan, His associates, particularly from Srila Rupa and Jiva Goswami. In their writings there is not so much stress on position and person of guru, as it is presently. You can see it very clearly. In their writings proportions are: 99% Krsna, and 1 % guru. "

Oh, proportions? So what? The subject is Krishna consciousness. But where does Srila Krishna das Kaviraja Goswami begin Sri Chaitanya-chartamrita? With guru tattva. When Mahaprabhu explains the process of developing bhakti to Srila Sanatana Goswami, the first five items deal with surrender and service to the guru and the vaishnavas. That's the basis for everything else. In other words, there simply is no progress in Krishna consciousness without guru. In Bhakti-rasamrita Sindhu, Srila Rupa Gosvami begins and ends every chapter beseeching the mercy of his spiritual master, Srila Sanatana Goswami, the vaishnavas, and the Lord. So to claim that in the Gosvamis' writings "there is not so much stress on the person and position of the guru" is patent nonsense.

As I've said before, and as Nitai just pointed out, KP is probably feeling twice burned. That's natural, I suppose, but if he wants to make real progress, he needs to develop faith in the vaishnavas. I don't think those who correspond with him should smash him, but they should be firm in their conviction in the philosophical conclusion of our acharyas. If we're kind and firm, perhaps he can be awakened.

Madhavendra Puri Dasa - July 25, 2007 7:56 am

Thank you for your answers. They are perfect. When I hear something like "In their writings proportions are: 99% Krsna, and 1 % guru. " I am feeling too shy to answer boldly, because I havent read all Gosvami's writings to say, "hey Kula , you are wrong", even if I feel he got it completely upside down. Therefore I am posting it here, because I see rivere of knowledge flowing on this forum :Big Grin:

Like I wrote recently to GauraSakti: since I met Swami (even not personally though) I am feeling like I was given really dangerous weapon, with which I can stand my ground against anyone

_______O__

Syama Gopala Dasa - July 25, 2007 9:09 am

durlabha manava-janama sat-sange taroho e bhava-sindhu re

"Having obtained this rare human birth, cross over this ocean of wordly existence through the association of saintly persons."

So much emphasize is giving in the sastra to the sadhu. How can we say 1% guru and 99% Krishna when it is through the Guru that Krishna manifests before us?

Swami - July 25, 2007 1:34 pm

I do not have the text here (Vamsi's house), but in Bhakti-sandarbha Sri Jiva Goswami writes that while traditionally guru bhakti is an anga (limb) of Visnu bhakti and Visnu bhakti is thus the angi (body), some devotees make guru bhakti the angi and Visnu bhakti its anga. This adjustment, he writes, is more pleasing to Bhagavan.

I believe I have cited this section elsewhere. Perhaps somone can look for this citation.

Bhrigu - July 25, 2007 3:11 pm

I tried to find it but couldn't. But there are many statements in the BS glorifying the importance of guru-seva.