Week 3 - Diksa Mantras -

Diksa Mantras discussion points:

What exactly are they? (No, not the words... their nature/essence)
How are they the 'intrinsic' form of the Lord?
How are they catagorized/prioritized? (See discussion of Krsna/Gopijana-vallabha mantras)
What is the reference to siksa-mantras all about anyways?

Note: Please bear in mind that some of us are not initiated, and talking about diksa mantras is a little difficult for us Also, this may be the SA group, but please use all appropriate etiquette when discussing these mantras (not writing the mantra out, etc)

This one is a reference to some tantric traditions; it's hardly a relevant issue for most of us.

The rest I'll leave for the rest of you to chew on, and jump onboard later on.

Personally, I've always been fascinated by the concept of 'transmission' in religious traditions. Most Indic religions depend on the concept of parampara for the source of their authority, but what is it about this continuity that gives 'power' to the tradition?

Why can't one just pick up a book and begin chanting mantras? I think its become obvious that attempting to do so neglects both the grace of Sri Guru and the vaisnavas in transforming the aspirant into someone prepared to perform bhajana, and without these two elements (first sadhu-sanga, then the grace of Sri Guru), one is simply not prepared to accept and chant the mantras.

Just as an observation, I think its interesting to see how in the saint (someone already initiated into the GV tradition) the 'guru-potency' has awoken, and becomes qualified to initiate, ie. to pass on the diksa mantras to the uninitiated. The uninitiated, in turn has associated with other bhaktas, and begins to understand guru-tattva and the need to take a guru and receive the diksa mantras from him. Through all of it runs the concept of grace, that given by Sri Hari, and by the guru (Sri Hari's representative). Grace is a very delicate things, and one can also start to see how aparadha is such a dangerous thing...

Am I safe in assuming that 'out loud' implies 'in public'? So, it is the prohibition against mentioning the dIkSA-mantras in public that keeps the mahA-mantra from being a dIkSA-mantra?

And out of curiosity, what is the reference for keeping dIkSA-mantras secret?

uccaiHzvare kIrtana definitely means in public, or at least in such a manner that people are very likely to hear it. That isn't the only reason though, others such as the lack of necessary constituents in the syntax are given in the section we're reading.

On keeping diksha-mantras secret - gopayec ca nijaM mantram (HBV 2.147) is perhaps the most often cited reference. You can find this as a common principle for example by studying the narration of Shivananda's meeting Nakula Brahmachari, whom the former recognized as empowered by Sri Chaitanya on account of his knowing his secret mantra. You'll find this in the second chapter of the Antya-lila of Chaitanya Caritamrita.

The continuity lies with honoring the principle of guru-tattva as Bhagavan's chosen medium of the bestowal of grace and revelation. The guru is understood to be a manifestation of Bhagavan's grace for the deliverance of the jivas, as we've read in our earlier studies. evaM paramparA-prAptam - This wisdom is received through the succession of gurus. But alas, now we realize that Bhagavan doesn't only come to establish the parampara, indeed he becomes every potent link of it to ensure the flow of devotion.



I was reflecting on this today; what is the factor, aside the connection with the parampara and the respect for the principle of guru-tattva, that makes the reception of mantras from a guru so much more powerful?

In our earlier studies, we've come across the principle of the permanency of the potency of instruction depending on the state of heart of the instructor. From that, we may easily understand that beyond the words of instruction, the impact of the heart's realization of the guru is of grave importance. Upon offering us the sacred mantras, he also leaves with us a samskara (impression) of his love for the beloved deities of the mantras.

The word used is sAkSAt bhagavAner svarUpa, the direct svarupa of the Lord. This we can easily deduct from the principle of the nondifference of the name and the named.

There is a relevant conversation in Sri Jiva's Bhakti-sandarbha (284) concerning the nAmAtmaka-mantra that also brings up other topics of interest.

The two core mantras of Gaudiya Vaishnavas, mentioned in Hari-bhakti-vilasa, are the ten or eighteen-sylallable Krishna-mantra and the twenty-four (and half) syllable Kama-gayatri.

Once, as I inquired from Baba in this regard, he informed me that these two are the actual diksha-mantras, and the rest are supplementary mantras for the purposes of smarana and archana. Incidentally, these are the only two mantras he whispered directly into my ear.

Different Gaudiya Vaishnava paramparas have different sets of mantras, they seem to vary a great deal. Some have just the two aforementioned core mantras, some have Gaura-mantra or Gaura-Gadadhara mantra (and possibly gayatri), some have Radha-mantra, and some have a good deal more.

What is Sri Jiva Gosvami saying here? Is he essentially quoting an argument that someone may postulate that it is possible to chant diksa-mantras from some book and enjoy the results thereof, without having to undergo the ritual of dIkSa? Sometimes it is a subtle to point to figure out whether the ritual or the "actual" initiation is being referred to.

No, he is saying: "Someone may think that without diksha, ie. without chanting the diksha-mantra and engaging in archana..." since the name is considered sufficient.

This argument could be postulated on the basis of statements such as the following prayer in Padyavali (third line is relevant):



However, Sri Jiva has explained the reasons for accepting diksha regardless of the potency of the name alone, since the contaminated natures of the conditioned souls pose obstacles, for example in the form of various aparAdhas, that are overcome through the methods of archana in the manners of learning proper maryAda (etiquette) and so forth, lifting one above the interfering aparAdhas and allowing the name to bloom.

I think it is something to do with mantra-siddhi and bIjas as well. Recently someone on another forum said the following:


It's a good question. Whether or not one has taken dIkSa, why even chant 'klIm' at all? Why not just chant 'Krsna', isn't HIS name all-powerful and what we want? My understanding is that the bIjas have a subtle effect on the mind due to some unknown reason that has to do with the mysteries of mantra-siddhi. 'Sound' (zabda) is very important and I would like to know how it works. As far as the intrinsic form of the Lord is concerned, the bIjas somehow are the seeds that contains the form of the Lord and associated tableaux, and that realisation of the same is gained by regular meditation/chanting of it as well as associated sAdhana. This is another mystery of the mechanics of mantra-siddhi.

The bIjas aren't the seeds of the Lord and the others. They are called bIjas because they are the seed of the mantra. The bIja is non-different from the mantra-devata. I am not at liberty to divulge meanings of mantra-bIjas in a public forum, however the bIjas are nondifferent from the mantra-devata and the devata's special qualities.



The structure of the mantra is there for a particular purpose. Diksha is there for the purpose of Atma-samarpaNa, as we've noted in another topic; diksha-mantras generally conclude in namaH or svAha, indicating the worshiper's self-surrender to the mantra-devata.

The structure of the gAyatrI-mantras is different, but essentially serves a similar function. vidmahe, dhImahi and pracodayat serve the purpose of establishing a connection with the names of the mantra-devata. Hence diksha is said to bring about a vizeSa-sambandha with the mantra-devata.