Guru as one beyond nistha - Split from "gaps"

You may have some of the terminology here a bit upside down (as in asakti before ruchi) or confused (as in ruchi for rati). At any rate, could you entertain us and establish with scriptural references that the guru must be beyond nistha. Since you brought it up.

That aside, are you familiar with the symptoms of the post-nistha levels of devotion in theory, and moreover, can you recognize them in practice? And if so, when seeking out a guru, did you honestly seek to verify him against such criteria? (Please note that I am not interested in having a statement on your particular guru, I am asking this as a general matter of principle.)

Is this according to HBV...?

I admit to being a bit sloppy with the terminology and the order - but let's start simply here:

Krsna says in Bhagavad Gita 4.34 that one should try to learn the truth by humbly approaching, asking relevant questions and serving a person who is a tattva darsi.

We all know that dashana means to see, so the basic idea isn't that one approach someone who has some connection through diksha with such a person - but to approach a person who actually has realization themselves.

This is probably as good a place to start as any. If the Guru must have actual spiritual realization and be a seer of the truth - then at what stage of development will that take place?

The point I was trying to make was that at the stage of ruci - which as Madhava correctly pointed out comes before asakti - the sadhaka actually begins to have some taste - some real feeling. Prior to that stage there is no actual feeling, only a semblance of such. Since we are talking about darshana and Krsna told Arjuna that he can only be seen as Arjuna was seeing him (two handed Syamasundara) by one whose heart is tinged with the salve of love - we are really talking about love and the actually ingress of bhakti tangibly in the sadhakas heart.

Prior to ruci one has faith and practices under the guidance of Sri Guru but their practice is not fixed and they haven't as yet developed any taste - in other words they haven't seen in the sense of true feeling.

Got to go now.

By the way - I don't really appreciate the atmosphere of challenge and mistrust - I am not out to debate anyone. That doesn't mean I don't expect things I have to say to be challenged. My point was to try to explain something about the conception of Bhagavata or Siksha parampara and the critique given by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta regarding diksha and the transmission of divya jnana.

Madhava - There are certainly citations in scripture regarding the self-realized soul in terms of how he will act and such. We could explore those on this thread.

In honest answer to your personal inquiry regarding my own search for Sri Guru goes - I had been disillusioned regarding the whole concept of Guru for many years due to my own experiences in Iskcon going back to the late 70's. I had kept my distance for many years. Through my own practice I again came to the point where I realized that I needed guidance from someone who had some spiritual attainment. My attraction was there, but my faith was not. At any rate I prayed and prayed and I cried my heart out asking Lord Nityananda to help me find a guide. When I met my Guru Maharaja I was instantly captivated by his siksha. It was quite some time before I took Hari nama diksha from him and an even longer time before I received mantra diksha from him. I did look to see in him the qualities that I would expect from what scripture has to say. My own subjective experience is and was that he is my own heart come before me - he represents my ideal. I see in him all that I want to attain.

With regards to interpretations on the meaning of tattva-darshi and the concept of the guru's having had the darshan of the ishta-deva. This is an interesting issue. I've heard it said that for one to be qualified to give a mantra, he should have attained mantra-siddhi, which in practical terms means the darshan of the ishta-devata of the mantra.

In the view of Rupa Goswami in his Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu (2.1.276), those in whom rati has awakened are eligible for having his darshan (utpanna-ratayaH samyaG ... kRSNa-sAkSAt-kRtau yogyAH). Drawing from the concept of the guru's being a tattva-darshi, we'd then regard guru as someone who has reached the stage of rati, or bhAva.

With regards to the symptoms of the stage of ruchi. I believe a pertinent question would be, how does one discern factual ruchi from the varieties fo semblances that come prior to that in the course of bhajana-kriyA, beginning from the very early stage of utsaha-mayI, where one displays bursts of enthusiasm due to his having acquired new insights into the subject matter?

Evidently, some form of ruchi is present throughout one's life of devotion from the very beginning; otherwise, one would likely not carry on. The significance of the ruchi after nistha is in its constant quality.

The concept of ruchi is examined in the fifth chapter of Visvanatha's Madhurya-kadambini. The opening passage demonstrates this feature of ruchi well:



Thus, there is a quality of constancy in the taste experienced and exhibited by the sadhaka. As we read above, there isn't even the slightest feeling of fatique in engaging in repeated hearing and chanting. From that, we can easily understand that the sadhaka on the level of ruchi engages in a substantial quantity of nama-bhajan throughout the day. (As a side-note, my respected guruji considers two lakhs to be a good daily minimum quota for someone who acts in the capacity of a guru.)

Ruchi is qualified under two headings, namely that dependent on the specific ingredients involved with the worship, and that independent, the latter being the superior stage. In the former stage, the constancy in ruchi is particularly exhibited in the presence of the desirable ingredients, such as smooth and beautiful performance of kirtan, a fine setup for archan or narrations of Krishna presented in a coherent, insightful and learned manner.

Ruchi is likened to a goddess that takes the sadhaka by the hand and leads him through the kingdom of jubilant devotional practice, gleefully dancing from one unprecendented devotional fervor and bliss to the next.

Examining the reverse side of ruchi, we learn from Visvanatha's treatise (3.18) that the eradication of varieties of anarthas arising from devotion, such as attachment to lAbha, pUja and pratiSTha (wealth, worship and honor), is absolute at the stage of ruchi, meaning that not a whiff of such evils is to be seen in the character of the ruchi-bhakta. Anarthas arising from the varieties of aparAdha, most notably nAma-aparAdha and vaiSNava-aparAdha, have been eradicated to a pervasive extent, though not altogether. The anarthas arising from sin and piety, such as a ignorance, maintenance of a bodily concept of life, attachment and hatred, lamentation arising from miseries and a spirit of sensual enjoyment, have been almost absolutely eradicated.

It is certainly reasonable to expect a guru to be at the stage of nistha or beyond, for has it not been said (BRS 1.2.22):



Such firmness in devotion has also been demonstrated in the famous Bhagavata-verse, zabde pare ca niSNAtaM brAhmaNy upasamAzrayam, urging one to inquire from a guru who is expert both in the scripture (zabde) and the supreme (pare), and who has taken full refuge of the spirit, commonly interpreted as having left behind concerns for that which is averse to a pure spirit of devotion.

Most of what has been said with regards to the eradication of anarthas also applies for the stage of nistha, only in a slightly lesser degree. Though Visvanatha is brief in his description of the one who has attained nistha, the following is told (4.3): zravaNa-kIrtanAdiSu yatnasya zaithilya-prAbalya eva dustyajye sambhavantI niSThitAniSThite bhaktI pradarzayetAm - "Slackness or intensity in one’s efforts to hear and chant are the best criteria for determining whether one has reached the stage of nishtha or not."

Returning to the situation in which one is to select a guru, though we all understand the principle of "the higher, the better", I would have to ask whether the prospective guru's being on the stage of niSTha would not be sufficient in absence of devotees on the stages of ruchi and beyond? Factual nistha is a substantial achievement, and seems to me to be a rather safe bet. From there to ruchi is a short leap, since many of the obstacles hindering bhajana have already been eliminated, and since devotion is known to be very powerful by nature.

Indeed, let's all try to cut down on sneering, sarcasm and the such. Trying to put someone down doesn't really serve any purpose beyond inflating one's own ego, or otherwise attemptomg to inflate the imaginary collective ego. I would like to openly disown any and all feelings of "we are a good bunch" that are attained through putting others down. If someone is into it, then please consider me as the first one to be counted out. I find it insipid and repugnant.

Thank you Madhava - I agree with what you have said and I appreciate the scriptural quotes. The reason I suggested ruci as the earliest stage appropriate for one to act in the capacity of Guru is that at that stage one actually has some taste. Of course, strictly speaking, until one reaches the stage of bhava bhakti where the bud of prema is present one can't in the strictest sense be considered a tattva darshi. I agree that to attain the stage of nistha is no small accomplishment. We can all take guidance from those above us in terms of their spiritual development and, indeed we certainly should.

There are some symptoms we can look for externally, but since the higher stages of devotion are enacted internally it may be quite difficult if not impossble for those of us on lower stages to actaully recognize who is a bhava bhakta etc.

I think in general it would be safe to say that the Guru should have some significant development in terms of bhakti and that he/she should at the minimum be beyond the distractions of anarthas that get in the way of the service of those on lower levels of attainment. I think we can at least agree on that.

So if we see a person acting as Guru who is, objectively speaking (as much as possible that is since we are not talking absolutes here and experience is subjective to large extent) on a lower level of attainment then we can ascertain that his/her sisyas will have difficulty making advancement and that most likely such a person will have considerable difficulty as well. We have certainly seen this in the case of many people who were acting as gurus in Iskcon.

Please allow me to put in two paisa here -

The verse tad viddhi pranipatena is

1. About jnana. What is this 'tad'? The previous verse says: jnane parisamApyate - karma culminates into jnana. tad refers to jnana, not darshan of Syamasundara.
2. The verse is in plural, though IGM translate it in singular case. jnani = singular, jnanina = plural, tattva darshi = singular, tattva darshina = plural.
3. This Gita-chapter is called Jnana Yoga.

What this has to do with prema-bhakti and its stages of bhava, nishtha, ruci and whatnot?

Secondly, is this discussion about diksa or siksa guru?

I believe we are talking about a diksha-guru here.

Regarding the jnana spoken of, Baladeva glosses it as parAtma-sambandhi-jJAnaM in his tika. The fruit of such knowledge is glossed in the next verse as yena bhUtAny azeSANi drakSyasy Atmany atho mayi, something that seems clearly reminiscent of sarva-bhUteSu yaH pazyed bhagavad-bhAvam AtmanaH (BhP 11.2.45) to me. I wouldn't like to see the jnana as nirbheda-brahmAnusandhana, and the only other kind of para-jñAna we know of is bhajanIya-tattvAnusandhana -- something I like to think Bhagavad-gita aims at throughout the text, despite varying interpretations. This would then make the tattva-darzI as someone who has seen the relationship with the Supreme, suggesting a very close encounter in realization.

Now, some modern interpretators have chosen to see the word dIkSA in the word upadekSyanti. I'll leave it to people more accomplished in Sanskrit to determine whether that's a transformed form of upadeza or something related with dIkSA. (Interestingly, Monier-Williams gives "initiation, communication of the initiatory Mantra or formula" as the fourth in his seven translations of upadeza.)

The next section we may want to look at more closely is the desired quality of pare niSnAtam, or expertise in the Supreme, noted in Bhagavata 11.3.21, and see whether it helps us better pinpoint the location of the guru on the map of devotion - leaving aside the disciple's subjective view of the guru, trying to ascertain more objective criteria for both those assessing prospective gurus and those otherwise not sharing a subjective view of any given particular guru.

1.upadeksyanti = plural, upadeksati = singular. The diksa-guru is plural? Not according to Bhakti Sandarbha and CC.

2. Where is this tad viddhi verse quoted in the Goswamis granthas in connection with either a prembhakti diksa- or siksa guru?

3. This chapter of Gita is not called jnana-yoga? There is no connection between verses 33 and 34?

I don't recall reading a mention of the concepts of either prema-bhakti diksha-guru or prema-bhakti siksha-guru in their writings, so I am at loss over what verses, if any at all, are quoted in such contexts.

Curiously, the verse doesn't seem to be quoted anywhere at all!



As already noted, Baladeva glosses the jnana of verse 33 as parAtma-sambandhi-jJAna in his tika. Beyond that, yes, the chapter is certainly called jñAna-yoga. The jñAna of this chapter contains the following topics:

• The history of the knowledge discussed. (1-4)
• The divine births and activities of the Lord. (5-9)
• Purification by knowledge of God for those who took shelter of him. (10)
• The Lord reciprocates with all according to their worship. (11-12)
• The truths about the Lord as the doer and the non-doer. (13-15)
• Proper and improper action explained. (16-22)
• The sacrifices and spiritualization of different classes of men. (23-32)
• The gradation of sacrifices. (33)
• Learning this knowledge from a seer of truth. (34)
• The fruit of the knowledge as seeing all beings in the Lord. (35)
• The power of the said knowledge. (36-38)
• The faithful and the unfaithful. (39-41)

The fourth chapter begins with a description of the enjoyer of all sacrifices. (Vide bhoktaraM yaJja-tapasAm, 5.29.) Verse 11 is clearly tied with the delineation of different kinds of sacrifices performed by different classes of men, all approved by the Veda. (Vide vedaiz ca sarvair ahaM eva vedyaH, 15.15.) Understanding the purpose of the sacrifices through perception of the Lord in everything, one transcends the world. The entire chapter, including descriptions of the Lord, build up to the knowledge that is to be learned from the seer of the truth, and the seer is obviously the seer of the truths related with the matter discussed, including the unborn Lord, who takes divine births in this world. janma-karma ca me divyam evaM yo vetti tattvataH - I believe this is included in the concept of the tattva-darzi.

Since this verse is nowhere quoted by the Gosvamis as a qualifier of a diksa guru, even more so because it is in plural case, I dont think it is really apt to use for Audarya lila as a stepping stone to prove his point that the Guru must be on the bhakti-stage of nishtha. I guess ACBS used the verse as a snap comeback to anyone who challenged him about the necessity of accepting and surrendering to a Guru. It is, however, used out of context, though the principle of pariprasnena sevaya is very beautiful and very fitting in a bhakti context. I dont consider Audarya's point proven yet. Madhava's quote from BRS about bhava bhakti showing the darshan of Krishna cannot be proven in connection with the diksa guru either.

Both upadeza and upadekSyanti are from upa-diz.


That is correct. Apte gives this definition as well and cites the following verse:

candrasUryagrahe tIrthe siddhakSetre zivAlaye |
mantramAtraprakathanam upadezaH sa ucyate ||

He does not give a source for this verse, but the context seems to be a zaiva one.

Monier-Williams gives the KAtyAyanazrautasUtra as his source for this definition of upadeza, again a different context from vaiSNavadIkSA.

Has the word upadeza ever been used in the sense of "initiation" in a vaiSNava context?

In any case, I agree with Advaitadas that the GItA does not hint at dIkSA in this passage.

Concerning nistha, we then of course have the famous phrase cited from Mundaka-upanishad (1.2.11), tad vijJAnArthaM sa gurum evAbhigacchet samit-pANiH zrotriyaM brahma-niSTham. Does this nistha differ from the concept of brAhmaNy upasamAzraya in the Bhagavata, and does that again differ from the concept of nistha on the ladder of the growth of bhakti? As a matter of fact, the latter is a definition more concerned with the idea of firmness in sadhana. Would that precede or follow brahma-niSTham, which would essentially be the equivalent of nirguNa-bhakti? I'd tend to think of them as parallel, the external and the internal fixation coming hand in hand as the inner evils are conquered.

Incidentally, Visvanath Chakravarti cites the tad vijJAnArtham verse in his tika on Bhagavad-gita 4.34:



Regarding the issue of diksha-guru and siksha-guru, I fail to see why anything less should be expected of the diksha-guru in terms of spiritual merits. After all, the diksha-guru should also be a qualified instructor.

With regards to the depth of perception in knowing something in truth, in 4.9 we learn that the one who knows the birth and deeds of the Lord in truth takes no more births in this world, but attains the Lord. Such power certainly spurs from something beyond a mere theoretical grasp of the concept. Therefore, when the concept of tattva-darzin is introduced, it must be taken to mean something beyond a skillful theoretician. If the experience of truths is taken as meaning nothing else, then at least it should include the topics that have just been discussed in the chapter.

The concept of mantropadeza is certainly there. However, I can't think if it being used on its own as a reference to the giving of the mantra.

Am I right in thinking that mantropadeza refers to the explanation of the esoteric aspects of the mantra after the mantra has been given?

I don't know that the plural is necessarily a disqualifier, as it could be an honorific plural. "upadeza" can mean either instruction in general or diksha in particular.

The context of the verse is, however, determinant here. None of the acharyas commenting on it has anything to say about pancharatrika initiation.

On the whole, however, I am not sure that there is that much difference. Jiva says that the diksha guru normally comes from amongst one's siksha gurus.

No, I meant rather literally: "instructing to you the mantra". Seems to be a common usage if you Google and Google a bit. It seems to be used for both, actually.

Lets give Sri Jiva the final word on this. Bhakti Sandarbha 207 on diksa guru -

mantra-gurus tv eka evety aha –

labdhvanugraha acaryat tena sandarsitagamah |
maha-purusam abhyarcen murtyabhimatayatmanah || [BhP 11.3.48]

anugraho mantra-diksa-rupah | agamo mantra-vidhi-sastram | asyaikatvam eka-vacanatvena bodhyate |
|| 11.3 || sri-avirhotro nimim || 207 ||

One may accept only one initiating spiritual master (mantra guru). This is explained in the following words (Srimad Bhagavatam 11.3.48):
"Having obtained the mercy of his spiritual master, who reveals to the disciple the injunctions of Vedic scriptures, the devotee should worship the Supreme Personality of Godhead in the particular personal form of the Lord the devotee finds most attractive."
Here "anugrahah" means "the mercy of the initiating spiritual master", and "agamah" means :the scriptures, where the rules for chanting mantras are described". Because the word spiritual master is here in the singular number, it is understood that one should accept only one initiating spiritual master.

Not a word mentioned here about nistha or any kind of spiritual merit.
About sandarshitagamah Sri Visvanatha confirms in Sarartha Darshini 11.3.48 — tam vidhim aha - labdheti. sandarsita agamo'rcana prakaro yasmai sah.
"It means showing the means of deity worship."

However, in the next paragraph of Bhakti Sandarbha (208) Sri Jiva does attach qualifications to the sravana or siksa guru -

tatra sravana-guru-samsargenaiva sastriya-vijnanotpattih syat nanyathety aha –

acaryo’ranir adyah syad ante-vasy uttararanih |
tat-sandhanam pravacanam vidya-sandhih sukhavahah || [BhP 11.10.12]

adyo’dharah | tat-sandhanam tayor madhyamam manthana-kastham pravacanam upadesah | vidya sastrokta-jnanam tu sandhau bhavo’gnir iva | tatha ca srutih – acaryah purva-rupam ity adi | ataeva tad-vijnanartham sa gurum evabhigacched [MundU 1.1.12] iti, acaryavan puruso veda [ChaU 6.14.2] iti, naisa tarkena matir apaneya proktanyenaiva sujnanaya prestha [KathU 1.2.9] iti |

|| 11.10 || sri-bhagavan || 208 ||

1 The initiating spiritual master enlightens his disciple in the knowledge of the scriptures. This is explained in the following words of Srimad Bhagavatam (11.10.12):
2 "The spiritual master can be compared to the lower kindling stick, the disciple to the upper kindling stick and the instruction given by the guru to the third stick placed in between. The transcendental knowledge communicated from guru to disciple is compared to the fire arising from the contact of these, which burns the darkness of ignorance to ashes, bringing great happiness to both guru and disciple."
3 Here the word "adyah" means "the stick below", "tat-sandhanam" means "the stick in the middle, which is the object of friction", "pravacanam" means "instruction", and "vidya" means "the knowledge of scripture". The knowledge created by this contact is compared to fire.
4 This is also confirmed by the following statement of Sruti-sastra (Taittiriya Upanisad 1.3.3):
"The spiritual master comes first. The disciple comes after. When they meet knowledge is manifested."
5 In the Mundaka Upanisad (1.2.12) it is said:
"To learn the transcendental subject matter one must approach a spiritual master."
6 In the Chandogya Upanisad (6.14.2) it is said:
"One who approaches a bona fide spiritual master can understand everything about spiritual realisation."*
7 In the Katha Upanisad (1.2.9) it is said:
"O dear one, the truth cannot be understood by logic. It is understood only by hearing the words of the spiritual master."
8 The verse quoted in the beginning of this anuccheda was spoken by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.