Initiation in ISKCON and Gaudiya Matha - Philosophy and historical accounts

Pujya Prabhus,

I feel it must be clear that Srila Prabhupada's disciples should remain so, even when taking shiksha from Srila Prabhupada's godbrothers, etc. There is no need for a re-initiation and new name. Taking shiksha is fine, even necessary, but RE-initiation is NOT!

Our relationship with Srila Prabhupada is eternal and continues even in the nitya-lila (HDG told me in '73). So where is the question or need of RE-initiation? We can take shiksha from any bona fide devotee, and even follow them, but under all circumstances ACBSP disciples should NOT get re-initiated. And under NO circumstances should Prabhupada's God brothers, and also Narayana Maharaj, re-initiate any of Srila Prabhupada's disciples.

Prabhupada's Godbrothers and NM, etc., should tell us, "You are already initiated by a perfect spiritual master with whom you have eternal sambandha- I can give shiksha guidance, and even shelter and engagement, but NEVER re-initiation!"

If a soul has a bogus guru who proves so then there re-initiation is justified. But in the case of Srila Prabhupada, a perfect and liberated paramahansa, giving US, his disciples **re-initiation** is a serious aparadha and direct insult which is painful to us all! There is simply NO REASON.

I was the 1st to find out...

Y/s,
Hrisikesh

The system of initiation in ISKCON and GM are different as you know. In order to have a meaningful discussion about this topic one needs first of all to define what initiation is.

I was on a GBC commitee to research and answer questions on the topic of re-initiation and I subsequently wrote a paper on this subject which was not liked by them. My conclusion was that re-initiation into the same mantras is only justified when the first guru is a NON-Vaisnava.

There is only one sloka that deals with this topic and it is in HBV also Bhakti Sandarbha.

avaishnavopadishtena
mantrena nirayam vrajet
punas ca vidhina samyag
grahayed vaishnavad guroh

Hari-bhakti-vilasa 4.144 (Also quoted SB. 11.3.48 Purport)

"One who is initiated into a mantra by a non-Vaisnava must go to hell. Therefore he should again be initiated properly, according to the prescribed method, by a Vaisnava guru." Quoted from Hari-bhakti-vilasa 4.144, Bhakti Sandarbha and SB. 11.3.48 Purport.

I can post the whole article if there is any interest.

Keshava

Well, not exactly so, there's more for example in the Bhakti-sandarbha. Of course that's a central zloka and much of the discussion revolves around it, but it's been considerably elaborated upon.

Pujya prabhu,

I agree with you. Shastra agrees with you. And my point is that Srila Prabhupada's initiation is pure and perfect (for his initiated disciples), he is never fallen Nor non-vaishnava. Therefore it is incorrect for disciples of ACBSP to get RE-initiated, and it is insult to re-initiate them.

Although we may take as much bona fide shiksa from where ever, or we may live in whatever Math, yet there is never need for Srila Prabhupada's disciples to be reinitiated

I'm sure you agree.

Y/s,
Hrisikesh

How were you the first to find out, Hrishikesh? I read on your site that ACBVS gave you Harinama and BH Bon Maharaja gave you diksa. Therefore, you were not re-initiated. You have diksa by BH Bon Maharaja. Didn't he also give you sannyasa and then ACBVS asked you to give up that sannyasa? Why did he do that? What was the need of your giving up that sannyasa if your sannyasa guru was bonafide?

Hrisikesananda was always disciple of Sripad Bon Maharaja, with siksa and harinam from Bhaktivedanta Swami and siksa from Krishna Das Babaji.
Hrisikesanandas and then Tridandi Swami Lalitananda Vana (his sannyasa name) articles are here:
http://www.vnn.org/authors/hrsikesananda.html

Harinam is harinam, but diksa is full initiation.

In Iskcon, harinam is initiation, and for diksa you have to have Bhakti Sastri, and recommendations from local authorities. If you are to be for example, disciple of Sacinandana Swami from Germany, then you have to wait just to be accepted from 2 to 10 years, and then you may be getting harinama, and after that diksa is reserved just for inner circle of sankirtana devotees.

Probably soon, person will have to win Wimbledon and endure triathlon, or train for a year in US Marine Corps camp to get harinama initiation in Iskcon.

If you read his posts and the links he provides you will see that he considers himself a disciple of ACBVS and he does state that ACBVS allowed him to rejoin his organization only if he agreed to give up his sannyasa and take again to a brahmachari position. I am only going by what he himself has written on the links provided.

This is what Sridhara Maharaja told those coming under his guidance.

Really!? aho bhagyam Luckily I did not fall under that stricture with my Guru Maharaja.

Yes, I know that it is elaborated in Bhakti Sandarbha, my point was that this is the only Mula sloka that mentions it, certainly there are Tikas explaining that sloka.

Thanks for the link to that discussion of April 2004. However I still take exception to the ultimate conclusion being that the envoius Vaisnava guru is a NON-Vaisnava.

My reasoning is based upon the original context that the sloka from NP is quoted. It is from a conversation between Narada and Brahma. The definition of given in that same conversation is simply that a Vaisnava is one who has taken mantra diksha from another Vaisnava. (I know that I should provide the Sanskrit) (Sort of a catch 22 situation)

And also by BG 9.30

Even if one commits the most abominable action, if he is engaged in devotional service he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated in his determination.

But I also see that I have misquoted the number of the original verse from HBV, it is 4.366 in Hari Das Sastri's edition (I was perhaps using another edition before).

Madhava would you like to give us the translation of the Tika on this verse from HBV?

Keshava

Hare Krishna! Too funny. It might even get so bad that they must run through a Gaudiya Matha "Belt Line" OR WORSE, they might actually have to offer respect to a "non-iskcon devotee", like, say, Lord Chaitanya.

With myself it wasn't so much what happened, as much as it was blown out of proportion that Bon Mj had stolen me, the traitor. So I was first to be accused.

I visited many Gaudiya Maths of Prabhupada's Godbrothers when travelling with Swami Bon. He was on great terms with them all --- BUT, what impressed me the most was that Bon Mj's disciples would mix with the other disciples. There was no banning. No, "my Guru is better than your guru!" Actually, this is how I first learned vaishnavatva. It was on meeting Iskcon devotees, only, that I came across the "Yours and Mine" mentality. Peace is missing in Iskcon. It is like a war.

And without that peace, they can keep their Hare Nam.

The question IS, as was mentioned, what is initiation? Hare nam OR Diksha? ACBSP told me that initiation and nitya sambandha was "Hari Nam"; B.H. Bon Maharaj told me that "Diksha" (not Hari Nam) was initiation and nitya sambandha. So who was right? Did Bon Mj "reinitiate" me by giving diksha and sannyasa? Well he certainly was disrespectful to Srila Prabhupada to offer to *take over* so to speak; but he knew I couldn't go back (being a fugitive - for last 3 years without even a PP), and he disagreed with the "mixing" of men and women in Iskcon. But he could have given me shiksha without my changing gurus, when ACBSP was already my Guru and he was "guru-tattva." There was a breach of Vaishnavatva, no doubt. Otherwise ACBSP wouldn't have gotten SO upset about it (my case).

And when I left Bon Mj he cursed me, and when I rejoined Srila Prabhupada he blessed me.

Where do I stand? Somewhere in the middle.

This is why I said previously that the system of Diksha is different in ISKCON than in GM.

In GM people get Harinam. There's no formality in this. Neither does their need to be. Then later they get Diksha in which the men attend an Upanayanam samskara and receive sacred threads and the first line of gayatri. This can be done by any brahmin or brahmacari of the Math. Then both men and women go to their Guru and are given the Pancaratric mantras.

In ISKCON people receive Harinam in a formal ceremony in which they choose and are chosen by a Guru who gives them a Vaisnava Name, Neck Beads, Japa beads and they make formal vows. It is definitely a formality.

Then at what is called 2nd initiation (really Diksha) in ISKCON people again sit before the fire and get sacred threads (for the men only) and are given the pancaratric mantras.

My point here is that obviously in ISKCON a person who has taken Harinam or what they call 1st initiation is considered the sisya of a particular Guru. Whereas in GM if someone has taken Harinam s/he is till formally uninitiated and free to choose a Diksha Guru.

The problem with Hrsikesh occured because of a confusion with these two systems. (If I am wrong Hrsikesh you can please correct me)

Therefore Hrsikesh IS a disciple of ACBVSP because SP accepted him as a disciple when giving him harinam and he accepted SP as his guru at the same time. When he later fled to India and met with Bon Maharaja naturally Bon Maharaja would have thought that since he only had harinam he was free to give him diksha. Because that is the GM system.

Perhaps Hrsikesh can tell us the full story of what SP said and why he asked him to take mantra and sannyasa again from him. But it is clear to me that this seems to have been an innocent difference in systems between GM and ISKCON that lead to some confusion.

Keshava

Certainly the whole question of initiations and reinitiations is a complex one, since rejecting the guru is expressly forbidden. In Hrishikesh's case, I would say that receiving Harinam is not such a big deal, though obviously the one who gives mala is a guru, and an important one.

However, diksha as such is clearly the giving of mantra. Because that act is meant to establish one's clear relationship and identity in relation to God (sambandha-vizeSa-jJAnam). In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, this relationship is established internally and externally, the external being a parampara going back to an associate of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. se sambandha nAhi jAr, vRthA janma gela tAr.

But things certainly do get complicated when it comes to real life. Fallen gurus, unqualified gurus, gurus in different rasas, etc., etc.

Ultimately, there is one Guru who may appear in many forms; but as one becomes fixed in self-knowledge, he is able to recognize through which channels the mercy flowed down. But one MUST be clear about who is his diksha guru in order to truly know the path whereby to proceed.

So to make things crystal clear Jagat. In your opinon can we say that the person who FIRST gives Krsna mantra (18 syllable) which is clearly the main mantra in Gaudiya Sampradaya IS the diksha guru?

Keshava

Iskcon seems to be the only Gaudiya institution that equate "Harinama" with "initiation" and a first one at that! How many are there?




First line of Gayatri? I never heard that one before.
Gayatri mantra has lines?

What is "initiation" anyway? It is an English term. It is silly to argue over whether giving harinAma or giving paJcarAtrika-mantra is "initiation" in the gauDIya context if the term "initiation" itself is not traced to an original Sanskrit context. If we take initiation as a translation of dIkSA, it is obvious that dIkSA means mantra-dIkSA, this is unequivocally explained in Bhakti-sandarbha and Hari-bhakti-vilasa.

It logically follows that he who gives dIkSA-mantra is the dIkSA-guru. There are two core dIkSA-mantras in the gauDIya-tradition, which are the 18-syllable kRSNa-mantra and the kAma-gayatrI. Receiving these two mantras is known as dIkSA.

The guru who gives harinAma is the nAma-guru, and the guru who gives dIkSA-mantra is the dIkSA-guru. Which one of them is the "initiating" guru? Well, both initiate you into something. But then why is it said that one can have only one "initiating guru"? That is said in the Bhakti-sandarbha, and the text explicitly states that there can be only one guru who bestows mantra-dIkSA; mantra-gurus tv eka evety Aha... (BhS 207)

I find the entire dialogue over what is considered "initiation" in ISKCON and Gaudiya Matha a bit off base, since the term "initiation" is not coherently used as the English counterpart of any particular term. If we take it as a translation of dIkSA, the whole dilemma becomes meaningless: "Which one is dIkSA, giving harinAma or giving mantra-dIkSA?"

It has a meter. Whatever has a meter can be written over many lines.

However I believe Keshava here refers to the first of the gayatrI-mantras they chant, namely the brahma-gayatrI, tat savitur vareNyam ityAdi.

Is their a "sannyasa diksa"?
What about babaji vesh?
Do they get some kind of mantra with that too?
Is that considered "initiation"?
What do they call it?

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

As Madhavananda pointed out both Harinama and Diksa are a sort of initiation. As far as which “ear marks” one as a disciple of a particular Guru that is a contention that is thought of differently through the various Gaudiya Mathas. Although ACBSP and ISKCON don’t contend that Brahman initiation, which serves as their Diksa initiation, is the most important they also asserted that acceptance of harinama as the beginning of the Guru and disciple relationship and thus believe that harinama from one particular Guru sets the stage to later receive diksa from that same individual. In ACBSP time this was something never questioned as he was clearly the only Guru and thus it is a sticking point in modern day ISKCON as they only accept ACBSP and his institutional guidelines as their example.

In reading folio ACBSP asserted that it was offensive for his Godbrothers to give diksa to his harinama disciples. There were even examples where Godbrothers would give the diksa, or Brahman mantras, to those that already received these mantras from ACBSP because the aspirant wanted to hear these mantras again from the individual they considered their primary Guru. So the question of it being proper to give mantra to one who has already received it from another isn’t an easy one to assess as most that did receive the mantras again from one of ACBSP’s Godbrothers don’t general assssert that they did so for any other reason than to further their faith and practice by receiving the same mantras from someone they considered themselves closer to. I know that some followers of Narayan Maharaja have received mantra again from NM even after receiving from ACBSP or one of his disciples “in good standing” with that same reasoning. This is what they point to as a reconfirmation of their spiritual practices as opposed to “reinitiation”.

Aspiring to serve the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

BSSP gave his sannyasis the "Gopi-gayatri"

CORRECT: Klim gopi-bhavasrayaya svaha

MISTAKE: Om klim gopi-jana bhavasrayaya svaha

Thanks Madhava, I agree 100%. We should talk only of dIkSa.

Still I take exception to the idea that one should take dIkSa again, unless one got dIkSa from a NON-Vaisnava (meaning Saivite, Buddhist, etc) which in the context of getting gopal and kamadeva mantras seems unlikely.

My point which I wish someone would address is that the original context in NP of this quote says nothing about the qualification of a Vaisnava being that he is not envious.

There are all kinds of Vaisnavas. But according to NP they are Vaisnavas simply because they have dIkSa from other Vaisnavas. To say someone is not a Vaisnava is to attack his dIkSa guru as not being a Vaisnava and so on.

It is a very simple definition but one which is the only practical one. Otherwise who is to judge who IS and who IS NOT a Vaisnava?

Again I say that BG 9.30 says that even though people do heinous things still they can be considered as properly situated.

All sorts of questions come when you do not take this point. We start asking when did the guru become a non-Vaisnava or was he always a non-Vaisnava. Was he a non-Vaisnava at the time when he gave dIkSa to me? Or was he not? Or does it matter?

In other words your guru may be envious or fallen or whatever. You don't have to live with him or follow his example or instructions, that's clear. You can give a little respect from afar to the person who gave you the mantras and then find another to give you siksha.

But where is the necessity to hear those mantras again from another?

Some say that it is important to hear the mantra only from an advanced person. That's nice, but be that as it may, you have already heard it. The potency is in the mantra.

CC Antya 4-192
diksa kale bhakta kare atma-samarpana
sei-kale krsna tare kore atma-sama

"At the time of initiation, when a devotee fully surrenders unto the service of the Lord, Krsna accepts him to be as good as Himself."

Whatever potency is in the guru is in his instructions. A mantra does not lose it's potency just because it is uttered by a person who is not so advanced. It's potency is inherent.

It simply requires one to do the sadhana to attract the mercy of the Lord to give us the realization.

So as stated above I cannot see how a person who has "actually" taken dIkSa and is "accepted as good as Krsna Himself" somehow because of offensive behavior by his dIkSa guru loses all that.

How does he lose that due to no fault of his own? Why should people be judged by the offenses of others? So my dIkSa guru falls, so now I have no dIkSa? Does this make sense?

Other examples just as absurd.

The person who installed the deities fell down so the deities are no longer installed

The priest who did my wedding fell down so I guess I am not married.

The guru is a representative of Krsna. Just like an insurance salesman is a representative of the insurance company. If you purchase a policy with the company your relationship with the company is established and even if they fire the salesman you are still covered.

It's the same. When we take dIkSa (also known as panca samskara) there is an element of surrender as stated in CC " atma-samarpana". So at that time "diksa kale" we become "sei-kale krsna tare kore atma-sama".

No matter what the guru does or does not do after that how can that be taken away from us as long as we are "atma-samarpana"?

Keshava

I have no objection to this reconfirmation but it cannot be called as dIkSa. If I discuss those mantras with someone who has already gotten them through dIkSa where is the harm. Sometimes I get out my tape of SP chanting gayatri and listen to it. So what, this doesn't mean that I am taking dIkSa again from him every time.

You are only a Virgin once!

dIkSa is when you FIRST get the mantras.

Keshava

Sorry is there any policy about posting dIkSa mantras? The usual practice is to openly discuss them only with those who taken dIkSa in them. Be that as it may the mantra which has been given by Hrisikesh as correct is not the sannyasa mantra given in Sat Kriya Sar Dipika, the text from which this mantra is supoosed to come.

I have encountered several different variations within ISKCON. So it seems that SP gave a few slightly different mantras; two are simply the difference between ending in svaha and namah. I know this because in 1982 Pancadravida Swami and Tripurari Swami asked me to tell them the correct one from the book. This was the year when 3 new gurus were finally added to the list of 11 who "succeeded" SP in ISKCON. Anyway Pancadravida Swami had just given sannyasa to a devotee from somewhere in South America. I had done the initiation fire yajna. So he and Tripurari asked me afterwards to confirm what the mantra was. I was a little astonished as they were both sannyasis so I just said, "You guys know what it is, why ask me?" So they then said that they only wanted to know what it said in the book. So I went and got my Sat Kriya Sar Dipika and read it to them. Tripurari said "I told you so!" to Pancadravida. Pancadravida said, "Well, Prabhupada told me, namah." So then I understood from them that one had the mantra ending with svaha and the other the same mantra ending in namah. Then I told them that in my opinion this was not very significant as in mantra sastra a mantra ending in svaha is considered feminine and and a mantra ending in namah, neuter. However the meaning isn't changed significantly. So they ask me what I thought Pancadravida should give. I said, "Well, either you could give it the way you heard it from SP, or you could give it the way it is in the sastra, it's up to you." I never did find out for sure what he did, but it seemed like he was leaning towards giving it the way he heard it from SP.

From then on I made more research and found that there were many sannyasis in ISKCON who didn't really have a good idea of the exact spelling of the mantra because unlike with the dIkSa mantras no one gives you a sheet with the sannyasa mantra on it when you take sannyasa. I guess because it's more secret than the usual gayatris. And many times the sannyasis are told it at the sacrifice in the middle of a kirtan. Some ISKCON sannyasis have asked me to write it out in roman with diacritics for them. Speaking of which, I have a copy of the sannyasa mantra in Bhakti Prajnana Keshava Maharaja's handwriting that was given to SP when he took sannyasa. I can scan it and post it if anyone is interested.

There is also another version of the sannyasa mantra which is not like either of the above. It seems to be like the Gopal mantra, maybe only 12 syllables. I think that it is just an innocent slip of the tongue by SP, but it is clearly not either of the above on the tape of Trivikrama Swami taking sannyasa. I have the tape if anyone wants to listen to it.

Keshava

Dear Madhava, pranams

Do you know the story of Gadadhara Pandita? Gadadhara took dIkSa from Pundarika Vidyanidhi right? There is a story that he told Mahaprabhu that he had forgotten his dIkSa mantra, and would Mahaprabhu please give it again to him. (If I'm getting this wrong please let me know) And Mahaprabhu refused and sent him back to Pundarika Vidyanidhi.

If you have anything to add I would love to hear it.

Anyway I guess that story just goes to illustrate the point about reconfirmation.

So previously I said that I didn't se the harm in reconfirmation but here we see that Mahaprabhu didn't accept even that.

I guess I just shot down my own argument on that one.

Keshava

I'm not so sure it's difficult to assess. If I remember correctly, when Hrishikesha went back to Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, he asked about hearing the mantras from him, to which ACBS replied that it wasn't necessary, since he (Hrishikesha) had already heard it from Bon Maharaja. If I got it wrong, then I hope Hrishikesha will correct me.

Hrishkesh, dandavats.

I recall reading that you spoke of siddha-deha with Bhaktivedanta Swamiji, right? What did he say to you about this issue?

Pujya Prabhus,

The quote below is correct. In fact it leads to several interesting stories.

1) When I came back I brought a new tulasi mala for HDG to chant on. I no longer had the big red (wood) beads from Haight Ashbury that HDG chanted on in 1967. Devananda Swami also brought a new Tulasi mala for HDG to chant on. Srila Prabhupada was very happy to have me back. It was like a victory in tug-of-war. Very affectionate, because I could speak Bengali and HDG knew that I knew!

Anyway, we both asked HDG to chant on our new tulasi malas from Vrindavan. HDG was happy and he chanted 108 MM and gave me my new mala. Then I asked HDG about telling me gayatri - and HDG replied, "Tumi jaanee naa?" I said, "Aamee janee, Gurudev!" HDG said "Shey tek-achi" End of issue .

THEN, Devananda asked HDG to chant on his new tulasi mala, but Srila Prabhupada became perturbed and asked Devananda "What? You think your old (red bead) mala is not Tulasi?" DA replied, "No, Gurudev, but I just thought these were from..." Prabhupada cut him off and said "You must never think for a moment that your old (red) beads are not directly Tulasi!" And HDG refused.

Another time Sat Svarupa gave me the sannyas mantra written in English transliteration, it was Om klim gopi-jana-bhavasrayaya svaha. I told Sat Svarupa (we shared room together) that it was wrong. He was offended. So he I and Srutakirti went next door and asked Srila Prabhupada. Prabhupada asked me and I told him that Bon Mj, the 3rd (lifelong) Sannyasi of BSSP (1924) told me the gopi-gayatri in a different form, and it was direct from BSSP. HDG agreed, and told SS to fix the mistake and "inform the others!"

This is all first hand...

And thats not all...

Hare Krishna!

Great! Go on, What next?

Keshava

Just a quick note...

I believe that like many issues, there are Prabhupada quotes going both ways as to what is considered the 'most important' initiation. In other words, I recall hearing that SP said both things, i.e. that nama-initiation was the 'real' initiation and also that mantra-initiation was the 'real' initiaion.
I guess I'll have to scour the folio if the true quotes are desired.

Ys,

NMd

I don't want to be harsh, but one question can arise in mind. It is well known fact, that ACBSP was reinitiated by BSST. He had diksa from guru from traditional gaudiya parivar before that. So, was that first guru avaisnava? How can it be proved? If not, somebody can say: "What was suitable and good for ACBSP (reinitiation), is sertainly suitable and good for me..."

Well indeed, that's an interesting point there. ACBSP was by no means the only one who was re-initiated by Gaudiya Matha. As far as I've understood, it's been a fairly common policy there to initiate people who had dIkSA from outside their group, particularly from a so-called caste Goswami.

I personally feel that it is absolutely up to every individual to decide whether he wants to get re-initiated or not. If someone does not want to be re-initiated, that's just nice. If someone feels the need for that because he cannot trust his former guru any more, let him do it.

A fascinating discussion (am I getting rasa?). Many thanks to Hrishikesha and Keshava for providing first hand information about interesting topics. I generally try to avoid this subject as I have guru-and-initiation-topic fatigue, but enough good points have been made that I feel I can contribute here.

I tend to agree with you both on the question of reinitiation within the Gaudiya Math context, as the mantra and sampradaya are the same. Appropriating someone else's disciples is poaching, and a provocative action that serves no higher purpose. However, it is my experience that there are very few gurus in the Gaudiya Math who abstain from this practice. No Bengali guru seems to think twice about giving diksha to a Western disciple who has already taken a white guru in Iskcon, whatever reason is given. But some GM gurus also seem to think that they have some divine status that makes them the legitimate successor or true holder of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati's torch, and that therefore even those initiated in other maths can be appropriated in this fashion.

This in itself indicates something rather important about diksha. It is seen as more than just an "initiation" on the path of devotion, but the mark that establishes an official relation. In other words, there is a question of ownership. "I gave you diksha, so you belong to ME."

Kalkidas raises an important point. The fact is that Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur reinitiated many individuals who had taken diksha in family lines. Sundarananda Vidyavinoda was one such person. I don't recall the name of his family guru, but he was in the line of Kanai Thakur, the same as Kanupriya Goswami. When Sundarananda left the GM, he went to Kanupriya and said, "By taking the mantra a second time, I committed an offense to my diksha guru. Since he is no longer alive, as you are the seniormost representative of his line, please accept me in his place." The two of them then became friends and collaborators.

The reference in Hari-bhakti-vilasa is--

upadeSTAram AmnAyAgataM pariharanti ye |
tAn mRtAn api kravyAdAH kRtaghnAn nopabhuJjate ||4.363||

Sanatan's commentary says "AmnAyAgataM kula-kramAgataM veda-vihitaM vA", indicating that the practice of preserving mantra through "zaukra" parampara is legitimate.

As I have attempted to point out elsewhere, Saraswati Thakur did not consider Pancharatrika initiation to be primary. Thus the idea of the Bhagavata Parampara was born. There are quotes floating around about Bhaktivedanta Swami also to the effect that "accepting the disciplic conclusion is real initiation." These quotes have been a boon to the Ritviks, who can now more or less say that taking the mantra is a mere formality, not essential to the prosecution of devotional service.

As Keshava's example shows, a marriage performed according to the rites, even by someone not up the standard behaviorally, is legal or legitimate [only] if the the officiating priest has official status.

I speak for myself, but probably for others (and here I honestly say that I wish Advaita were back) who have taken initiation from traditional lines, when I say that we consider Pancharatrik diksha more than a mere formality.

This is why, without minimizing the work of Srila Prabhupadas I and II, we feel that it is legitimate to seek diksha in traditional lines, even if one has received mantra in a line from Saraswati Thakur.

There are many underlying considerations that have been brought up time and again, about where the potency of the mantra lies. There are conflicting verses, as this whole discussion about non-Vaishnava indicates. Keshava has brought up the "officiating priest" version of the diksha guru. The Gaudiya Math has consistently promoted the "potent guru" version of things, which explains all the hopping, skipping and jumping.

I'll leave my comments there for now.

Jagat

I hope you all don't mind me introducing these comments here.
It may appear a bit fuzzy wuzzy to you but I feel its relevant here.
What is lacking here is a consideration of the experiential element in initiation
and this is my clumsy attempt to invite it.

Best Wishes.

In response to Talasiga. The point was already made in this thread about the terms diksha and initiation. What we are talking about here is specifically diksha, or the formal giving of mantra by guru to disciple.

Confusion arises from a grammatical misunderstanding.

divyaM jJAnaM yato dadyAt kuryAt pApasya saMkSayam
tasmAd dIkSeti sA proktA dezikais tattva-kovidaiH

This verse is not defining an unknown named "diksha", but rather saying why the known thing, diksha, has been given that name. It's the difference between "A beautiful woman is my wife" and "My wife is a beautiful woman."

In other words, "Diksha, i.e. the transmission of mantra by guru to disciple, is known by this name because it is meant (use of vidhi-liG) to bring divine (dI) knowledge and destroy sins (kSA)." Not, "Anything that gives knowledge and destroys sins is diksha."

Thus, to get back to the experiential and the formal, which is the same discussion of "Bhagavati" vs. "Pancharatrika" diksha, diksha is only the latter in both cases. Even in the quote below, attributed to Haridas Thakur, the idea of dIkSA as a specific vow indicates a formal commitment rather than a religious experience.

saGkhyA nAma saGkIrtana ei mahA-yajJa manye
tAhAte dIkSita Ami hai prati-dine
yAvat kIrtana samApta nahe nA kari anya kAma
kIrtana samApta haile haya dIkSAra vizrAma

Interesting the way you put that definition. Here is the translation of the same verse (from Bhakti Sandarbha 283) by ACBSP:


or


or without reference to the Sanskrit:



Some more quotes from ACBSP (would anyone care to comment on these?)






And here's one about purazcarya vidhi for Jagat:


Also just to give more details on ACBSP's kula guru I quote here from the Gaudiya Patrika article about ACBSP taking sannyasa.


This is an excerpt from an article given to me by Santosh das entitled Gaudiya Patrika Article on Srila Prabhupada's Sannyasa, dictated by Santosh, typed by Dasya-rasa dasi.

Keshava

Bhakti-sandarbha only has 340 anucchedas.

Some comments on those verses you cited and their translations.



This is an interesting verse. Although Sanatana himself comments that dvijatva means vipratva, the verse is cited in the context of eligibility for archana, and the anuccheda emphatically explains how people of all varnas, regardless of gender, can engage in archana.



DIkSA in the context of the second vilAsa certainly refers to paJcaratrika-mantra-dIkSA, not the upanayaNa-saMskAra. As I am certain you are aware, in the gauDIya maTha the two have been merged into a single ceremony. This, however, was not the practice prior to the establishment of gauDIya maTha, and therefore the verse cannot really be interpreted in such a way.



Here the two verses are merged together as a single strand of thought, although we are dealing with a comparison.

The text says: Just as a dvijA who is yet to go to the teacher, who has not yet undergone the upanayaNa-saMskAra, does not possess eligibility for engaging in his prescribed duties,

Similarly he who has not received dIkSA is ineligible for worshiping the mantra-devata. Therefore, one should accept dIkSA to make his life auspicious.



Now that's interesting. I've never heard the name of his original dIkSA-guru. Does anyone know anything of Mahindranath Goswami?



The first verse:


Though this is persistently attributed to Hari-bhakti-vilasa, I am yet to come across the verse with the exact reference included. Somehow I have never been able to locate it in Hari-bhakti-vilasa. Interestingly, it is also nowhere to be seen in secondary sources, not at least as far as my database of the entire contents of GGM goes.

The second one:


This is one among the several verses which are cited to demonstrate that a guru who has gone astray from bhakti proper ought to be rejected. The reasoning of Sri Jiva is that one who has become bereft of the mood of a Vaishnava is no longer a vaiSNava, and therefore the verse about receiving a mantra from a non-vaiSNava is applicable.

So you are saying that the original meaning of the verse is that ONLY dvijas or vipras (meaning brahmins) were qualified for arcana.

So then the commentator veiws this in terms of pancaratric dIkSa for which the qualifications are open to all castes and women.

Then this became the Gaudiya view.

Then BSST and later ACBSP took the approach that they would MAKE people brahmins as well as giving them pancaratric dIkSa. So they fulfill the qualifications in both ways.

Doesn't this idea then come closer to the original literal intent of the sloka?



As far as I know ACBSP's family (the De's) were from the Suvarna Vanik community. His father was a cloth? merchant. I understood that the Suvarna Vanik communities traditional gurus were from the Bhagnapara Goswamins. (Correct me anywhere here if I'm wrong) Bhipin Bihari Goswami, Bhaktivinode's guru was also a Bhagnapara Goswami. I seem to recall that Ramakanta Chakravati mentions that the Bhagnapara Goswamins were traditional followers of Nityananda. Certainly BVT's diksa parampara would agree with that. Also I understood that they were traditionally worshipers of Krsna Balarama due to the early dominance of sakhya rasa in Bengal due to the influence of Nityananda and the Gopals before the festival of Kheturi. This might account for ACBSP's preference for Gaura Nitai instead of the usual only Gaura with Radha Krsna deities in ISKCON and also for his installation of Krsna Balarama in Vrndavan. What I am saying is that it could be that there was some early influence on ACBSP in this way from his trtaditional Vaisnava upbringing. Some of these influences could account for some differences in GM and ISKCON. (No offense is intended)

Regarding:



I have different editions of HBV where should I look?


Keshava

You can see it in its context here. I have never seen Tattva-sagara so I don't know of the original context. The verse itself doesn't speak of archana, and the context lends support to an interpretation akin to what was said earlier in Bhakti-sandarbha, the quote about how one is not eligible for worship of the mantra-devata prior to dIkSA. The anuccheda is very clear in that members of all varNas are eligible for arcana, not only brAhmaNas. The verse is also not in any way in a predominant position in the context, it is more of a "oh and here's one more verse", and after it's cited nothing more is said of the verse, particularly not in the context of varNAzrama.



I haven't the foggiest idea, somewhere between the front and back covers.

I am sorry but the plain ol everyday meaning of deeksha
in Hindi is initiation. I would infer a similar meaning in the other
Indic languages as well.
Semantics changes little from one Indic language to another.

That initiation may have several components is acceptable
and it is approppriate to discuss this here
with some of you connoting deeksha with the formal process.
However, even so, the formal component is meaningless without
some introductory experiential sample,
some taste.
That is why some of the quotes proffered by Keshava
refer to deeksha in terms of transcendental groundbreakers.

My point is that unless the formal process is concurrent
with an experiential sample
or
occurs in reference to a preceding experiental sample
then the whole thing is meaningless.

That is to say,
initiatory formalities are only spiritually valid
under the aegis of spiritual experience/s.
Otherwise not.

It is interesting to see how far off the original topic this discussion has taken. The one and only topic here was regarding the initiated disciples of Srila Prabhupada. They should NOT be reinitiated, OR - there is no spiritual need. It is an insult to reinitiate Prabhupada's disciple.

People who have been initiated by bogus kanista adikaris posing as guru-tattva should most certainly get properly initiated by a bona fide acharya within Gaudiya Sampradaya.

One man's mahA-bhAgavata is another's kaniSTha-adhikArI, and vice-versa. This is the problem. This is also the reason why people generally do not advertise their gurus or pronounce universal judgements on such issues which involve our subjective experiences.

Hrisikesh,

I have being watching different devotees coming and going out of this Sanga with this same kind of attitude you are having now. However, many of them are here and happy. In my humble opinion, you should try to understand the mood first and than the experience that everyone else has accumulated in dedication for KC.

I read some of your articles awhile ago, and I liked. Now, honestly, I never expected such a lack of flexibility coming out of your thoughts, as you are demonstrating in this thread.

For the twice-born the fire (Agni) is a representative of God. The Supreme Lord resides in the heart of his devotees. Those of average intelligence (alpa-buddhi or kanista adhikary) see God only in His Sri-murti, but those of broad vision see the Supreme Lord everywhere.
Chanakya Pandita, 4/19

If Guru is not different from God, as Srila Visvanatha Chakravarti and other Saints affirm, shouldn’t the above theory be applicable in this case, too?

With respect,

The discussion has not strayed all that far from the beginning, as everyone is trying to understand what is meant by initiation or reinitiation. There are several people on this forum, myself included, who have been initiated more than once. I myself received second initiation in Iskcon while Srila Prabhupada was alive, but took mantra again from Lalita Prasad Thakur. I have justified that in my own mind as a legitimate act, though most in Iskcon see it as an act of guru-tyaga.

Most of those reasons have been discussed, but my principal points is this :

The Saraswata-Gaudiya sampradaya, though close in many respects to the Gaudiya sampradaya, is a different line with certain key differences. Adherence to one or the other of these lines usually entails diksha, even if diksha has already been received in the other.

The question of Iskcon and Gaudiya Math should be decided in the same way. Are they two different sampradayas or the same sampradaya? In other words, does Iskcon belong to the Saraswata-Gaudiya sampradaya, or does it belong to something new, the Bhaktivedanta-Saraswata-Gaudiya sampradaya? If so, what are the essential differences that would make this contention justifiable?

I would say, no they are not different, principally because they accept the same parampara. The Gaudiya sampradaya, while paying due respect to all the members of Saraswati Thakur's parampara, does not accept this lineage as a legitimate parampara. There are significant reasons for this, but the most important is that of organic connection to the associates of Mahaprabhu and the consequent identity that results from it. Saraswata Gaudiyas are principally connected (organically) to Saraswati Thakur and to Bhaktivinoda Thakur. Their connections to the Gaudiya sampradaya prior to that are idealistic, not organic.

Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami's huge role in spreading Krishna consciousness to the rest of the world, his various innovations in terms of ritual, etc., do not make his a separate disciplic line. Anyone initiated by him and going to another Gaudiya Math for initiation should not be reinitated, and any Gaudiya Math guru who suggests as much is, as Keshava and Hrishikesh indicated, committing an offense to Guru Tattva.

I personally feel the same applies to reinitating further down the line, but these things do happen. We are here into the problem of the "siddha guru" obsession, instead of the "connection/identity" approach. The "charismatic" vs. "institutional" guru approach. But this is for another time.

Pujya Prabhus,

There is initiation, accepting a spiritual master; if the Guru is bona fide. There is no need of RE-initiation, changing Gurus, because it is an insult - in Srila Prabhupada's case - both by disciple AND new initiator - against the Sat-guru.

BUT, we are not liimited to one Guru. That's what Kaviraj Gosain start's CC. "Vande gurun!"
And Re-initiation, in this sense, is much different that continued initiation. In my case I took Hari Nam from ACBSP in 1967, so he was my first Guru, my Hari Nam Guru. Later, due to unimaginable circumstances I took "FURTHER" initiation, Diksa, from Swami Bon Maharaj, and ACBSP was satisfied with that diksa (and didn't give it again). In the future we may meet others and take even higher initiations in mantras, and bhajan, until we realize our nitya-svarupa through Guru shakti.

But it never occured to me that ACBSP was NOT also my Gurudev, my first. I never renounced him in the process of progressing in my KC. I never got reinitiated and changed Gurus.

And from a spiritual view-point I really couldn't understand what Bon Mj & Srila Pr were arguing about. I accepted them both... BUT, I could only "COLLECT MONEY & MATERIALS" for one of them, so as far as I could make out it was a business dispute. At least that is the picture Maya paints. But I still accept them both as Guru-tattva. And even the lowest brahmacari in GM was also my Guru.

Jaga, Don't you mean the Bhaktivedanta-Saraswata-Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya?

Keshava

The question remains, if ACBVS thought your diksa from Bon Maharaja was fine and did not give it to you again, why did he ask you to give up the sannyasa he gave you?

GOOD QUESTION! What can I understand about the paramahansa's. I can only imagine the jati angle, and that would be that HDG asked me to give it up for the same reason that Pres Bush keeps Saddam's pistol, it's a token of victory, in a tug of war.

Prabhus,

The only reason was so that my name would return to Hrisikesh das (from Swami Lalitananda Vana) - back to my original name from HDG in 1967 --- Name Change is the reason. But there was no need with diksha gayatri (it seems from HDG's words) as my name was back to normal.