Superstar

This is a reply to a comment from Don Randall on the Idiocracy post:

He said:

I haven’t heard of any bona-fide gurus who teach that diksha is required. A close read of Prabhupada’s books is all that would be required to debunk such an argument.

Most all Gaudiya gurus do teach that diksha is absolutely essential. Prabhupada may have at times said that diksha wasn’t absolutely required, but most of the time he did. For example this is from his Easy Journey to Other Planets

The following details outline a general practice by which one can prepare himself for an easy journey to the Vaikuntha (antimaterial) planets, where life is free from birth, old age, disease and death.

General practice (positive functions):

1. The serious candidate must accept a bona fide spiritual master in order to be trained scientifically. Because the senses are material, it is not at all possible to realize the Transcendence by them. Therefore the senses have to be spiritualized by the prescribed method under the direction of the spiritual master.

2. When the student has chosen a bona fide spiritual master, he must take the proper initiation from him. This marks the beginning of spiritual training.

3. The candidate must be prepared to satisfy the spiritual master in every way. A bona fide spiritual master who is fully cognizant of the methods of spiritual science, learned in the spiritual scriptures such as the Bhagavad-gita, Vedanta, Srimad-Bhagavatam and Upanisads, and who is also a realized soul who has made a tangible connection with the Supreme Lord, is the transparent medium by which the willing candidate is led to the path of the Vaikunthas. The spiritual master must be satisfied in all respects, because simply by his good wishes a candidate can make wonderful progress along the path.

Don then said:

Nonetheless, especially in modern history, all the Gaudiya Vaishnav acaryas highly recommend diksha, some more than others. Srila Narayan Maharaj has written that diksha is an “absolute necessity,” but he also gives instructions for newcomers or those who for one reason or another never had the chance to take diksha.

He doesn’t reject devotees who haven’t taken diksha, or who don’t feel the need. In fact, he often speaks highly of uninitiated devotees. He certainly doesn’t teach the smarta brahmin philosophy or the sahajiya philosophy.

Of course none of the gurus who teach that diksha is essential will reject people who haven’t as of yet received diksha. How would they make new disciples if they did that? Most really don’t care if you take diksha, they just want you to believe that you are dependent on them. So they stress the importance of diksha by using citations from scripture or from past acharyas on the importance of diksha. But as I explained previously, those teachings are no longer relevant in modern times. See these two posts for more on that conception:

http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2008/10/07/i-should-have-known-better/

http://harekrishnawomen.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/guru-inc/

He said:

In addition, there are varying degrees of self-realization. Anyone with firm faith and knowledge of the science of Krishna can act not only as a siksha-guru or a vartma-pradarsaka-guru, but also as a diksha guru. Of course, nobody can act as the caitya guru, but Krishna.

Anyone regardless of their level of self-realization or what they know or how much faith they have can act as “a siksha-guru or a vartma-pradarsaka-guru, but also as a diksha guru.” Their only limitation is the credulousness of the people they teach.

He also said:

It’s a smarta brahmin misconception that only one born in a brahmin family can act as a diksha guru.

All aspiring devotees are encouraged to take shelter of the residents of Vraj, as they are our eternal siksha gurus.

I agree with your first statement, but it’s not just smarta brahmins who believe that, many Gaudiya Vaishnavas in India believe that as well due to a statement in the Hari Bhakti Vilas. As for your second thought; the residents of Vraj are meant to be seen as an example of how you can relate to Radha Krishna in raganuga-bhakti, e.g. some residents of Vraja such as the gopis and the priya-narma-sakhas engage in erotic pastimes with Radha Krishna, they serve as an example for us of the highest form of relationship we can approach God with — in sringara-rasa or the romantic erotic relationship.

He said:

When you use the term “self-realized,” what exactly are you referring to? Are there not varying degrees of self-realization? And are you saying that only a mahabhagavat should act as a diksha guru?

I mean a person who has realized the true nature of the self, i.e. our ontological relationship with the supreme Self, i.e. antaryami/paramatma. I don’t mean someone who only understands it from a philosophical or theological point of view. I mean someone who has realized or experienced it, i.e. someone who has attained bhava-bhakti.

I’m not saying “only a mahabhagavat should act as a diksha guru.” The problem is that most people who represent themselves as “bona fide spiritual masters whom you should take diksha from” teach all sorts of nonsense. That is because they are unqualified to be gurus. It’s all right and well to say that someone can be a guru if they are not self-realized if they simply repeat authentic teachings — but the reality is that you never see that. They pretty much always like to give their own commentary more than repeating authentic teachings — they like to create their own spin in order to make themselves look like they have deep realizations — or they really think they have deeply profound realizations to teach. More often then not though — they don’t know what they are talking about.

And, they often repeat stuff from other “spiritual masters” who were in the same boat as themselves, e.g. you can hear ISKCON gurus repeat what Prabhupada said about women or raganuga, you can hear Narayana Maharaja’s followers repeat what he has taught about the absolute necessity for leading a life of complete renunciation from “sense gratification” along with the absolute requirement for submission and service to a guru. Sridhar Maharaja’s followers repeat those same things plus what he has taught about “keeping the raga marga above you, worshiping it from a distance otherwise you will disturb that quarter.” You can hear Tripurari’s followers teach that Prabhupada and Sridhar were 100% perfected liberated fully self-realized “rasika acharyas,” because that is what he teaches them.

I’m saying diksha is not necessary and not important. It can help create a bond with a guru, but it isn’t necessary to practice and attain the results of bhakti-yoga. And, more often than not the people who are giving diksha are teaching all kinds of nonsense, and, also using diksha as a means of trying to make you think you are dependent on them — because they are God’s representative whom you must not offend — and whom you must submit to otherwise you offend God.

Often they put those ideas across in a subtle way, meant to make you think that you came to the conclusion yourself of the necessity of becoming their devoted servant. Other times they are much more straightforward and tell you that you cannot escape samsara or advance in self-realization unless you surrender to them as their menial servant. Usually it’s the big gurus with lots of followers who are not afraid to come across as egotists and make those claims, e.g. Prabhupada, Narayana Maharaja, Sridhar Maharaja, or many ISKCON gurus who are generally very egotistic and not afraid of telling people they need to surrender to them.

He said:

Diksha?

[In a conversation with Satyaraj Khan, Lord Krishna Caitanya said,] “One does not have to undergo initiation or execute the activities required before initiation. One simply has to vibrate the holy name with his lips. Thus even a man in the lowest class [candala] can be delivered. (Cc Madhya 15.108)

http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/15/108/en1

That is the truth, but it’s not what most Gaudiya gurus teach. They teach the exact opposite.