Accepting a new guru and rejecting the old? - Reviewing what's acceptable

I remember once a devotee asked Baba in a letter whether he could receive harinama by phone or not. Baba declined while expressing his sympathy, explaining that such a practice would not carry the religious value the occasion merits. Now, of course this is not the same as receiving through tape-recorder, but it is a precedent of a request for a non-traditional initiation nevertheless.

A significant aspect in an initiation ceremony is the samskara it creates. The ceremony of initiation in the personal presence of the guru generally produces a deep impression of a bond between the initiate and the guru. There is really no substitute for being in the personal presence of the guru.

I remember the days of my initiation. First harinama, then year later diksa. On both occasions, we spent several hours with Baba during the day, both I and my wife received nama and diksa-mantra in a separate, individual ceremony. The ceremony was naturally followed by inquiries and instructions. guru-pAdAzrayAs tasmAt kRSNa-dIkSAdi-zikSaNam, taking shelter of the feet of a guru, receiving Krishna-diksa and subsequent instructions.

Visvanatha comments on BRS 1.2.74: dIkSA-pUrvaka-zikSaNam ity arthaH | kRSNasyeti kRSNa-prApter yo hetuH kRSNasya prasAdas tad-artham ity arthaH || "This means instructions preceded by diksha. The merit of this is in its being the cause of attaining Krishna and receiving His mercy."

In the end, it comes down to your own experience. If it doesn't work for some particular individual, no amount of theologizing will make it work. I have heard of instances of sadhus re-initiating people with a legitimate diksa-guru because the thing just didn't work. Of course, this is strictly speaking not legitimate grounds for re-initiation, but in my opinion serves the purpose and complies amicably with common sense.

Rasaraja, personally initiating disciples, sanctifying beads and so forth need not become an obstacle to one's writing work. I know the example of Sri Ananta Das Baba. He has a couple of hundred disciples in Vraja, and thousands in Bengal. I don't know exactly how many, let's say there are 4000 total to get on with the point I am making.

Let's do the maths. He's been giving initiations since the 50's. That makes half a decade, 18250 days, and thus 0.22 initiations per day. Every fifth day he's given an initiation to someone. Of course, since he looks for an appropriate, auspicious day for initiation, sometimes many initiates receive initiation on the same day. Baba generally spends about an hour of the day for an individual initiate. If many come during the same day, the time spent for preparations is naturally cut down a good deal. However, nevertheless each initiate receives mantra individually and without the presence of others.

The point I am making is that if the will is there, the way is certainly there for giving individual initiations to everyone desiring to receive initiation

If it's not working it's not working. Diksa is more than a formality. diksa kale bhakta kore atma samarpana. "At the time of diksa the bhakta surrenders his very self. " My Guru gave diksa to initiated disciples of Gurus in good standing and with a verifiable diksa-pranali. Of course, this can cause social frictions, but a devotee cannot be condemned to life-long stagnation if he cannot find his way with a Guru that does not suit him. My Guru has never asked me, before, during or after diksa, if I had been already initiated by others or not. Do you love me? eso, baba - "come, my child".



This is not a fair comparison to ACBS, who gave 5000 initiations, times 2, for those who got 'brahmin' initiation, makes 10.000 initiations, in just 11 years. ADP took 4000 in 50 years. 11 years is 4000 days, that means 2.5 diksas a day for ACBS, while the candidates lived all over the planet. Not that I'm in favour of tape -diksa, mind you.....

Yes, that doesn't add up to the same, I know. I was just giving an idea of how it adds up and is possible.

10000 / 4015 days = 2.5 per day. 20 minutes each = 50 minutes per day. Still a humanly possible addition to the daily schedule of a guru.

I've heard of people outside ISKCON/GM, some Goswamis for example, giving initiations to groups at once though.

Just curious if anyone knows of a historic precedent for group-diksa, or any scriptural mentioning or condemnation of it. Of course, in the time the shastras were composed there was no phone, much less cell-phones, e-mail or chat-sites with voice-connections through which proxy diksas can be given. Proxy diksa will therefore not be mentioned or condemned by shastra.

Of course there would be precedents for "giving harinama" to groups.

Harinama is not diksa, right?

By the way, a question about harinama:
I came to conclusion, that any person, who received harinama initiation, can give initiation to it (with the permission of his guru, naturally). It's my own conclusion, made from things that i've read in various sources.
When i has written this my realization at another forum, i received reply, that "only guru can give harinama"...

And another question: do orthodox gurus reinitiate in harinama disciples, who already received it in ISKCON/GM?

There is strictly speaking no "initiation" or "reinitiation" in harinama. It is more of a "I bless you to chant the holy names" occasion. Hence it is only natural that such an event would occur, should the devotee feel that he lacks appropriate, potent blessing for his nama-japa.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

Still you have to realize that the bulk of Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja's disciples started receiving initiation in 1967 which is ten years for 5,000+ individuals, verse the 50 years for your Guruji, for such initiations. You take into account the amount of translations/books he was worrking on, many public appearances around the world, travel, opening and establishing of centers and events that he personally guided and the actual formation/management of a society that was growing that large, that quick, and it would have been impossible to do what your Guruji does. Again the reality of the service done by Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Maharaja and your Guruji goes a long way in determining the ability they will have in offering their specific type of experience.

I also have to agree with Advaitadas in that if it's not working, it's not working. Of course their may be natural repercussions to such a situation so it is extremely important to ensure that the words we speak and actions we take are done with due consideration to the Vaisnavas. Remember it is a relationship with an individual who obviously has feelings and made a sacrifice in entering into that particular relationship. I believe at times we tend to over philosophize the relationship when it fit’s our needs. So I truly believe that if explain our heart and take every precaution not to hurt or offend those who we have a relationship with then it is okay to find a more suitable relationship.

As far as Madhava’s point on the importance of the samskara that initiation has on the heart… great point. A quick story: I asked my Guruji for initiation in 1992. At the time he was not accepting disciples any longer so he apologized and suggested that we have a siksa relationship and that I take from someone else. After another year of me hoping that he would change his mind he decided to initiate me. I traveled to Europe to see him at a disciples meeting and there were well over 200 devotees there and several seeking initiation. My Guruji said he would initiate me but that I would have to stay mum on the initiation until I left so not to upset anyone else. Anyhow the day before Janmastami I was called to the home he was staying in and told that he would initiate me now. Now my “dream” initiation would be a one on one ceremony as I never feel comfortable in public situations and I always felt that the initiation would have the greatest effect if it were a one on one initiation and now my wishes had been fulfilled. I was initiated in a room the size of a big closet in the presence of my Guruji’s long time servant and my wife. It was such a sweet and intimate event that has left a mark on my heart. So I agree wuth Madhava’s point that the samskara is an important piece of the puzzle..

Aspiring to be a servant of the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

If we look in Bhakti Sandarbha and Haribhakti Vilasa, the only clause for reinitiation is if the Guru is an enemy of the Vaishnavas. tatrapavada - vaishnava vidveshi cet parityajya eva. Some ultra-ritualists give reinitiation when one has not practised one's mantras for more than 5 days. There seem to be verses in the smriti to justify this practise, but such texts are not quoted in the Gosvamis books and we take their quotations to be the essence of smriti (nana shastra vicaranaika nipunau sad dharma samsthapakau). Such a practise is of course very impractical - what if one is sick for longer than 5 days (a good flu is enough for that)? What if the Guru has expired or lives far away? As I stated earlier, reinitiation is obviously required if the disciple can not make any progress with his current Guru or the Guru's practise turns out to be incompatible with the disciple's own feelings. There is no mentioning in shastra of reinitiation being required when the disciple breaks the principles. Indeed, although the 4 principles of ACBS are laudable, they are not mentioned in the Gosvamis' books as a prerequisite for diksa, what to speak of reinitiation being required in case one breaks them....

I am surprised to see several persons take the prohibition against giving up the guru so lightly. If somebody is not satisfied with his guru - assuming that the guru is not avaishnava - wouldn't it be enough to just take better shiksha from someone else? That also seems to be the traditional way. Giving up a guru because the relationship "doesn't work" sounds awfully utilitarian to me.

Bhrgu

This is the teaching of Srila Jiva Goswami in Bhakti Sandarbha (207) - tad aparitosenaivanyo guruh kriyate. "If the Guru does not satisfy one takes another Guru." I have heard that Sridhar Maharaja also tought that if the Guru and disciple are really very unhappy with each other, they simply burden each other and they should be able to move on with their lives without each other. I did not suggest that such a step should be taken lightly, though.

Dandavats. All glories to the Vaisnavas.

I also didn’t make my initial statements on this subject to mean that this type of situation is as simple as changing one’s outfit. I am sure for 99% of the devotees this would be a decision after years and years of deliberation and would be anything but an easy decision.

I do think this is a unique phenomenon for those that come with an ISKCON/GM background as the climates within those institutions encourage one to take initiation quickly and there is somewhat of a limited choice. In some respects you are taught that what you see within that particular mission is either the best choices available or the only choices available. For those who joined these missions pre 1988 I would say that a choice wasn’t even available so this issue is going to be more prevalent. In any case there needs to be a lot of care to ensure that we treat the situation delicately because regardless of the circumstances and one’s feelings on the qualification of the Guru that individual (the Guru) still has taken on a service and responsibility within your specific relationship that shouldn’t be seen lightly.

From my personal standpoint I do not regret my personal choice. I had a relationship with my Guruji for two and a half years before taking initiation and I knew his personality and mood well before taking the steps of initiation. Since that time I have had the opportunity to work on his books and writings as well as spend a lot of time with him in both public settings and one on one settings (i.e. staying at my home and personally serving him for extended periods, etc.). This allowed our relationship to take on a specific type of dimension that many don’t get the opportunity to have and that have definitely deepened my appreciation for him, his mood and ability as Guru.

My participation in this forum stems from my personal attraction to the take and approach that the more “traditional” lines take in the practice of Vaisnavism. Unlike those transplants that go from ISKCON to say, Narayana Maharaja, my attraction is not so much in regards to the intense focus on the madhurya rasa element as much as the practical approach to both discipline, sadhana and Guru Tattva. It definitely isn’t a result of my relationship or experience with my ISKCON Guru as we continue to have a very nice, sweet and close relationship.

Aspiring to be a servant of the Vaisnavas,
Rasaraja dasa

But, one may not be satisfied with a perfectly good guru. In that case the guru is qualified but the disciple isn't. Can one just give up a guru whimisically because the guru doen't satisfy his demands? This kind of refererence doen't require any standard. It just says "if you are not satisifed" then "you can reject one guru and take another". That doesn't sound like a very definitive description of the how and why one can reject a guru and take initiation again. It leaves too much room for someone to abuse that verse to commit aparadha. Wouldn't it be vaishnava-aparadha to reject a qualified guru who was simply following the orders of his spiritual master?

This verse than says: "If a disciple is unqualified he can reject a bona-fide spiritual master and find a guru that caters to his demands a little better".

It seems like one would need a legitimate reason to reject a spiritual master apart from "not being satisfied".

I think that largely depends on how urgent that disciple's feeling of 'not being satisfied' is. Again, I never said that this decision of changing Gurus should be taken lightly. To avoid whimsical behaviour by the sadhakas, Jiva and Sanatana have quoted verses that strongly condemn the abandonment of the Guru. However, when the disciple moves more and more in a different direction from the Guru's, and the Guru cannot appreciate or approve of the direction the disciple takes, they will just become burdens and sources of agitation to each other, and separation will be a relief to both. Indeed, if they would continue the relationship the disciple would really commit one aparadha to the Guru after the other, as he starts disagreeing with him more and more, whereas if the Guru agrees "Yes I will release you - go to the Guru that suits you better" no bad feelings will be there on either side.

As much as I know , R.N. Maity mentions in his book ¨Chaitanya Parikar¨-that at Kardaha,a large number of ladies became Viracandra's disciples.Maybe Jagat can help?

With respect,

>This is the teaching of Srila Jiva Goswami in Bhakti Sandarbha (207) - tad >aparitosenaivanyo guruh kriyate. "If the Guru does not satisfy one takes another >Guru."

But is this really what Jiva Goswami means to say? He first says, quoting Brahma-vaivarta, that one must not give up the mantra guru. Then comes the line quoted above, that if one is dissatisfied (for whatever reason) with such a guru and takes initiation from another guru, tato anekagurukara.ne puurvatyaaga eva siddhi.h, one has then in fact given up the first one [since there can be only one mantra guru]. Only after this does Jiva Goswami give that famous avaisnava-exception. To me it seems that he is just saying that taking another diksha from another guru automatically means rejecting the first, whatever the intentions of the disciple.

Bhrigu

Whatever, it means that one can give up the previous Guru and then take diksa from the next one. As I said in my previous post, the Gosvamis did not want to make Guru tyaga a cheap and whimsical thing, hence these warnings against Guru tyaga in general. In my opinion, that is why Jiva added the preceding and following quotations. Note also that the whole paragraph 207 deals with the Diksa Guru and the phrase I quoted can therefore not refer to a Siksa Guru.

We've spent quite a bit of time figuring out the tad-aparitoSeNApy paragraph. Critique on the translation below? One of the more ambiguous words is apavAda, which may be rendered in a number of ways.

bodhaH kaluSitas tena daurAtmyaM prakaTIkRtam |
gurur yena parityaktas tena tyaktaH purA hariH ||

"One who rejects the guru is rejected by Hari. His understanding becomes contaminated and he becomes wicked."

iti brahma-vaivartAdau tat-tyAga-niSedhAt | tad-aparitoSeNApy anyo guruH kriyate tato'neka-guru-karaNe pUrva-tyAga eva siddhaH | etac cApavAda-vacana-dvArApi zrI-nArada-paJcarAtre bodhitam --

Thus rejecting him is forbidden in the Brahma Vaivarta Purana.

One who is dissatisfied with his guru and who accepts another guru, for him the rejection of the former guru is perfect. In this way there may even be an exception, as understood from Sri Narada Pancaratra:

avaiSNavopadiSTena mantreNa nirayaM vrajet |
punaz ca vidhinA samyag grAhayed vaiSNavAd guroH || iti |

"One who has learned a mantra from an avaishnava goes to hell. Again he should be initiated according to the proper method by a vaishnava guru."

Jiva first presents evidence that rejecting the guru is forbidden, and then goes on to give an example of an exception. He cites the well-known verse of NP to support his point, but it is interesting to note that he does not speak of avaiSNava in his statement which the verse is cited to back up.

I don't think that the guru's being an avaiSNava is the only criteria for being legitimately dissatisfied with the guru. After all, one may be dissatisfied on account of the guru's inability to resolve doubts on scriptural matters, or one may be dissatisfied with the inexemplary and deficient sadhana of the guru, and so forth.

After all, in Anuccheda 238 the concept is again discussed:

yaH prathamaM zAbde pare ca niSNAtaM [BhP 11.3.21] ity Ady ukta-lakSaNaM guruM nAzritavAn tAdRza-guroz ca matsarAdito mahAbhAgavata-satkArAdAv anumatiM na labhate sa prathamata eva tyakta-zAstro na vicAryate | ubhaya-saGkaTa-pAto hi tasmin bhavaty eva |

A guru who does not embody the qualities of proficiency in scripture and the Supreme and so forth (BhP 11.3.21), who is envious and so forth of devotees of the highest order, not allowing others to offer tribute to them, for one to renounce him is not in disobedience of the scripture. If such association is maintained, both of them will fall down.

This gives an interesting context to the concept of vaiSNava-vidveSa, which we've examined earlier on. Later on in the Anuccheda Jiva speaks of the vaiSNava-vidveSi, which, judging by the context, seems to not be anything more than the matsaryata mentioned above. The section above also does not speak of an avaiSNava, but merely speaks of a guru who lacks zAbda-para-niSNAtatva and does not allow others to offer tribute to sadhus of higher order on account of envy. Envy seems to be clearly defined in the context as a desire to not see others praised over oneself.

The only meaning I know to the word sankat is dilemma. It seems to me that this phrase means - "thus both fall into a dilemma (the devotee cannot get higher siksa and the Guru is stuck with a sisya who is too clever for him). "

Samkata in M-W: danger, difficulty, critical condition. Cappeller: difficulty, distress, pain.

In any case, both are obviously waist-deep in mud.

The earliest textual evidence I have been able to find for it is the early 18-th century text under title '' Ananda-bhairava '' of Prema dasa.This text can be found in M.M.Basu's '' Sahajiya sahitya'' p.148 and reads : '' Virabhadra Gosvami ... gave initiation to 12000 nedas and 13000 nedis . ''

( By the way, ''Nedas '' and ''Nedis'' are the Buddhist monks.)

with respect,

Doesn't say anything about what sort of initiation it was, though, or how it was performed. Would you, by chance, have the original text at hand?

It also doesn't mention whether this was group-diksa or he initiated them one by one. Can imagine it was group-diksa, though, otherwise it would have taken him years, if not decades.....

About 125 days if he did it 24/7 and spent 15 minutes on each person.

So if he had a regular 9 to 5 schedule (8 hrs) it would have taken him a year. Could be one by one then.

Yeah , but this is material calculation

with respect,

Well, despite diksa being a spiritual event, it does take place within the framework of time and space. At least, I remember my own diksa taking place at a certain location and taking a certain amount of time......

Every gopi think that Krsna dance with her alone...

Perhaps you might like to explain this somewhat cryptical remark a little further. You suggest that Virabhadra was expanding himself into 25,000 Virabhadras to give diksa to all the neras and neris simultaneously? Could be, but is that also described in the book you quoted?

Well...who knows ? In my humble opinion ,it's not so important to know HOW He did it .

You know ,Advaitadasji, I just wanted to help , but if you are not interested in serious disscussion and instead you wish to be ironical - I am very sorry.

With respect ,

Sorry there is some communication breakdown here. I myself thought that you were joking. My question to you was dead serious actually. If you dont know the rest of the story that is quite allright with me.

Well, if we are looking for a precedent for group initiations, I think it is actually very important to know how he did it.

Why then , in your opinion, nobody (as much as we know ) describe that ?

with respect,

It's not important in general, and therefore not described in the book, but it would be important in this particular case, as we are seeking precedents of group initiations.

I think that the requirement for precedent is unnecessary. If we require that everything an acharya or guru does to be precedented, then that puts restraints on the acharya to adapt Krishna consciousness according to desha, kala and patra.
As time progresses, we find unprecedented circumstances and challenges to the preacher of Krishna conciousness. These unprecedented circumstances demand uprecedented solutions.
If we limit everything to precedent, then none of us would be discussing Krishna concsiousness today, since the effort that Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami made to bring Krishna consciousness to the western world is unprecedented.
Preaching raganuga-bhakti over the internet is unprecedented. Where does it say in shastra that everything an acharya does has to have a precedent? Even precedents are sometimes unprecedented, so what really is the meaning of unprecedented?

I don't think Rupa Gosvami spoke of sAdhu-margAnugamanam for nothing, mentioning it right after guru-pAdAzraya, kRSNa-dIkSA-zIkSa and guru-seva. The tradition has to be there to set a relevant example. Granted, exceptions may occur, but let us not do away with the tradition nevertheless. The exception should not replace the rule.