Necessity of Realization in Guru-pranalis - and other arising issues

I've got a question!

Diksa-paramparas in classical Gaudiya Vaishnavism are meant to be direct connections leading all the way to a personal associate of Mahaprabhu. These direct connections are necessary because some paddhatis require the sadhaka to meditate on lila with the involvement of the entire guru-pranali. When the sadhaka actually enters into lila, he is worshipping Sri Gaurasundara and Sri Sri Yugala-Kishore behind his guru-parampara, because that is the way, right? This means that the entire guru-pranali before you is meant to be siddha, realised.

My question is this:

What if any of these gurus in a guru-pranali didn't receive realization in their sadhaka lifetimes?

Due to some unfortunate circumstance, a guru prematurely left the world before receiving realization but he gave diksa to disciples. What next? How is the sadhaka supposed to meditate on an "unrealized" connection? Will this guru receive realization in his next sadhaka birth, where he is supposed to pick up where he left off? If so, how can we be sure? How can we be sure that the guru-pranali consists of souls who have realized with their respective sadhanas? What is the sadhaka meant to do if a guru is not realized? What happens to a sadhaka if a guru falls down?

I remember reading in one of Nitai's BhajanKutir articles that it was not necessary for the guru to be realized as long as they receive the genuine diksa-mantras (and pass it on). Why is this so? Why is it not necessary?

What we're meditating on is not some sort of unrealized siddha-deha. A siddha-deha is eternally real. The siddha-deha of the guru and the siddha-deha we have is eternal and real. There is no question of this siddha-deha's attaining maturity. It is forever mature. The only question is the sadhaka's absorption in this siddha-deha.

Now, whether the guru has attained full absorption in siddha-deha or not is not relevant in regards to our meditation. We meditate on the eternally perfect siddha-deha of the guru, the very same eternal siddha-deha the guru in his sadhaka-form meditates upon. These siddha-dehas exist forever regardless of anyone's realization. It is not that they do not exist prior to the sadhaka's realizing them. If it was so, it would render the concept of an eternally perfected siddha-deha meaningless.

That being said, let me add that these are not the kinds of points you go around debating around the block. Most people out there have little faculty for such considerations. One who does not have faith will never come to attain certainty in topics such as this.

There is a sense in which everyone who receives mantra diksha, transmitted from mouth to ear down the generations from an associate of Mahaprabhu, is immediately 'siddha' at that point, because with the mantra comes divya-jnana, the entry to the infinite realm and to the siddha-deha one needs to exist in that realm. Just as Govardhan is perfect because it was touched by Sri Krishna's feet, yet it appears to be just another mound of rock subject to wind and rain.

This is a mystical truth and not a practical one. In practice we need to endeavour in sadhana and recognise that others are also endeavouring, and some may even appear to fall away. In normal practical terms only a few Gaudiyas are actually recognised publically as 'Siddha'.

It is important to keep in mind, however, that the mantra is always pure and perfect. The mantra is the current of perfection underpinning siddha-pranali.

Perhaps Vaishnava das ji wonders what would happen if the disciple attains siddhi before the Guru does. I have heard two answers to that when I lived in Vraja : 1. Radharani will occupy the position of the Guru rupa manjari until the guru has caught up with his disciple and 'takes his vacant seat' . 2. There is no time in the spiritual world, so the Guru is always there in his nitya siddha form. The second one resembles Your answer, Madhava. What is your opinion about these two answers?

The Vraja-devis are described as Radharani's kaya-vyuha rupa, an array of Her own bodily expansions. Regardless of whether the siddha-rupa is animated by the siddha-individual or not, it is essentially a form of Hers. When the individual jiva gains complete shelter in the firm embrace of svarupa-sakti, the concept of bhedAbheda becomes even more relevant than it is to us in our present state. While individuals, we are simultaneously aspects of one eternal being, aspects of His (and Her) persona. Needless to say, there is much for us to discover of ourselves.

As for the idea of no time in the spiritual world, the fact that a succession of events and an ever-increasing expansion of pleasure takes place, necessarily indicates the presence of time. Bhagavata (3.11.3) defines time as the presence of motion measured in objects. In other words, the presence of time, which itself is an unperceivable object, can be perceived in the fact that events take place.

According to Jiva, the phrase "vrajati na hi" of Brahma Samhita means that the residents of the spiritual world are not aware of the presence of time, and the defects of time do not take place there. This, however, does not mean that no time exists. Only the decaying effects of time do not take place as they would in the temporary realm we inhabit. There is certainly a succession of events there.

That being said, I consider the first option you present as the logical answer. The siddha-deha itself is eternal and ever-present in the realm we aspire to attain. This does not mean that the sadhaka who has assumed the role of our guru is completely present in that siddha-form. However, the guru is more than what used to be the sadhaka who came to assume this role. Guru is a combination of bhakta and Bhagavan. When the mercy of Bhagavan decides to descend in the form of a guru for the sadhakas of this world, the complete faculties of both the bhakta and Bhagavan, including the nitya-siddha-deha which is a spark of His presence in the spiritual world, become available to the faithful disciple.

A bit hard for me to gauge the depth of this. There may be no time in the spiritual world (if we presume na kala vikrama in SB 2.9.10 to mean 'no decaying vikrama of time'), but the siddha deha of the guru is nitya, and nitya means no adi and no anta. So it is actually there always, regardless of whether the sadhaka who is our guru has attained siddhi or not? Then it seems to me that the first option is out. Forgive my slow understanding.....

In his Manjari-svarupa-nirupana, Sri Kunja Bihari Dasji compares the siddha-dehas not animated by any mukta-jivatma to the shadows of the spiritual world.


If we agree with this premise, I believe the question is rather over who animates the siddha-deha. The nitya-siddha-deha is there, waiting for its turn to become active and engaged in service, and it evidently has to become active when the need arises. I believe in an exceptional case when the disciple attains siddhi before the guru, the siddha-deha awaiting the sadhaka who has assumed the role of the guru is animated by svarupa-sakti to accommodate the siddha-disciple, a siddha-deha to be then shifted over to the sadhaka upon his attainment of siddhi.

I do not know much about this siddha-pranali, all I read was strong criticism from some Gurus. I heard a story that some of Prabhupada's disciples joined the babajis in Vrndavan, and they revealed to him that he was a peacock in the spiritual world, so the guy started to do some sessions imitating the peacocks, thus trying to identify with his svarup. Can someone tell me more about all this?

Actually they told him that he was a monkey in Goloka, and the fellow started running around making monkey noises and stealing things and causing all sorts of general mischief. He started his own monkey svarupa pranali. They eat a lot of bananas, or so I have heard.

The search button is your best friend in cases like this. For example:

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?act=ST&f=1&t=13

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?act=ST&f=4&t=662

http://www.gaudiyadiscussions.com/index.php?act=ST&f=2&t=292

Imitating the activities of the siddha-deha in the sadhaka-deha is not a practice supported by orthodox Gaudiya Vaishnavas. There is a clear division between the two, which was made particularly clear by Visvanatha Cakravartin.

Oh, so that's what a famous Rasika acharya was trying to tell me when he called me a monkey? He was giving me siddha-deha! Achaaa! I am so foolish not to have understood.

This also answers Nitai's question about what Vaishnava Akhara we belong to:

Sri Hanuman's Monkey Army!

Ravan, watch out!

Happy Ram-vijay all you fellow Akharis!

There was another guy who was revealed that his siddha deha was a cow in Vraja. He wonder off mooing. One day he got caught by some people in the bangi colony. They sold him to a McDonald's outlet in Delhi.

No, no, you have not understood. This famous rasika acharya was commenting that while his friend was a guru to the Beatles, HE was guru to the Monkees! Perhaps in your wool hat you reminded him of Michael Nesmith?

But then who was the guru of the Who?

Easy, Doctor Who!


But actually, did you know that Pete Townsend was a big follower of Meher Baba? This was a famous Sufi Baba of the 1930's-1960's, with many western followers.

Aren't we all just Daydream Believers?