|
Post by gerard on Jan 24, 2011 9:35:45 GMT -6
I don't think my judgments of those gurus are unfair. It is a fact that they are not initiated into any authentic lineage of CV and therefore they are not really members of this tradition. Do you deny this? It is not my opinion. It is a fact.
Those who are not fooled surely leave. The ones who stay can possibly be fooled all the time.
This is of course the point I was making. One does not become an acarya by popular vote. So having followers and even lots of them is no sign that one is an acarya. There are three reasons why these "gurus" cannot be acaryas:
1. They are not properly initiated 2. They have engaged in Vaisnava aparadha in their writings and speeches 3. Their writings contain apasiddhanta (that is the opposite of siddhanta).
These are facts, not opinions. As there is talk of facts here perhaps a silly question, but how and by whom exactly is it determined that some writings contain apasiddhanta? Is being "properly initiated into any authentic lineage of CV" some sort of a guarantee that somebody will not produce apasiddhanta?
|
|
|
Post by malati on Jan 25, 2011 3:02:45 GMT -6
Nitaidas commented: What can I say about jagat? He at present prefers sahaja dharma to Vaisnava dharma. His struggles with sexuality may be more intense than the rest of us. Sahaja dharma may help him conquer it. Long periods of copulation without ejaculation and that combined with japa and meditation on Radha and Krsna. Surely he will gain control of his urges.
He is still extraordinarily learned. He forgets more about CV in fifteen minutes than many of us will ever know. He is duly initiated by Sri Lalita Prasad Thakur and I am sure that his caittya guru will guide him back into the fold eventually.
I would like to talk about Jagat. He had done some good works in the past but I would like to talk about him and about the ideas he is presently pushing, based on what I have read from his blogs years ago (I've not visited it for years because the last time I was there, which was years ago, I fell asleep; too boring).
In my opinion Jagat's ideas are backward, corruptive, shallow, parochial, no universal appeal.
What are the ideas that he's pushing? Take a sexual partner who is not your usual partner or wife, preferably someone’s wife and engage in copulation sadhana (without ejaculation) and make it as the lynchpin of your dharma?There’s nothing progressive about that; it's backward. That has been going on in the backwaters of India for centuries.
In this modern world, Jagat’s ideas are narrow-minded and parochial (can 6 year olds engage in the sexual sadhanas? what about the oldies, who cant do the sexual gymnastics? or those who are just too lazy (just imagine the effort one has to put into the activity so as not to ejaculate) for this methodological copulation?).
Jagat is sowing “immorality” and what he is proposing is anathema to a stable society. Think of the economic, psychological or moral issues that might arise from a botched sexual sadhana. I’m sure you can imagine what I mean.
If Jagat is not careful, he might be counting the days when he gets punched on the nose from a disgruntled husband.
|
|
|
Post by malatimanjari on Jan 25, 2011 9:32:10 GMT -6
I don't know exactly what Jagat's ideas are, but I would say that most devotees have a misconception about Sahajya, which is strongly influenced by IGM perception of it. We can see that in the books of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami, who - even though strongly preaching against it, was deeply influenced by it, as was Bhaktivinode Thakur.
Unintentionally he promotes the same ideas as the Sahajiyas, namely that kama and prema are not different in essence, only in their appearance. Sahajiyas claim that kama is inside us, but it is originally prema, and we only need to purify it to achieve prema. Which is exactly SP's philosophy. Material lust is a perverted reflexion of spiritual love.
However, prema is Krishna's svarupa sakti and has absolutely nothing to do with tatastha sakti's kama.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jan 25, 2011 11:17:13 GMT -6
I don't think my judgments of those gurus are unfair. It is a fact that they are not initiated into any authentic lineage of CV and therefore they are not really members of this tradition. Do you deny this? It is not my opinion. It is a fact.
Those who are not fooled surely leave. The ones who stay can possibly be fooled all the time.
This is of course the point I was making. One does not become an acarya by popular vote. So having followers and even lots of them is no sign that one is an acarya. There are three reasons why these "gurus" cannot be acaryas:
1. They are not properly initiated 2. They have engaged in Vaisnava aparadha in their writings and speeches 3. Their writings contain apasiddhanta (that is the opposite of siddhanta).
These are facts, not opinions. As there is talk of facts here perhaps a silly question, but how and by whom exactly is it determined that some writings contain apasiddhanta? Is being "properly initiated into any authentic lineage of CV" some sort of a guarantee that somebody will not produce apasiddhanta? The answer to your first question is that apasiddhanta is discovered and pointed out by critical readers of the works of the IGM "acaryas" and who also provide evidence from the sastras that certain ideas and claims made by said acaryas are wrong. Some of the examples of apasiddhanta discovered in the writings and speeches of the "acaryas" is the siksa-parampara (which I myself have commented on as have Radhapada and Malatimanjari), the value of the institution of sannyasa (which I have commented on), the idea that the IGM is the only lineage through which one can receive Mahaprabhu's grace (Openmind and Fionafemmere have pointed out), the idea that vaidhi bhakti leads to raga bhakti (which I have pointed out at various points and will do so again), the wrong identification of Mayapur as the birth place of Mahaprabhu (pointed out by Dr Radhagovinda Nath in a article I translated and published somewhere on this site), the identification of kama and prema (which Malatimanjari pointed out just recently in commenting on Jagat's turn to sahaja dharma, though I would certainly like to ask for more clarification from her on this, especially with respect to where BVS claims this), and so forth and so on. You yourself have probably found many examples of apasiddhanta in the writings of the IGM "acaryas." The answer to your second question is unfortunately no. Proper diksa does not guarantee that one does not accidentally or even knowingly embrace apasiddhanta. The main problem is that the scriptures are vast, difficult, and not easily available (or are available in misrepresented forms). It is easy to make mistakes and it is hard to test the works of others for them. Someone who is honest will try to correct whatever mistakes he or she has discovered in her understanding. But, if you are an "acarya" mistakes are embarrassing and the likelihood that you will admit that you are wrong is very slim. A genuine acarya should be someone who has spent years studying and doing bhajan before coming forward to take that roll. Acarya is way beyond the guru. The acarya takes a stand as an example for the whole tradition not just one of the lineages within the tradition. I don't think there are any real living acaryas today in CV. There are honorary acaryas like Chandan Goswami or perhaps Prem Gopal Goswami. This recognizes the specialness of their births and upbringing, but I don't think this means that they are real acaryas.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jan 25, 2011 11:55:54 GMT -6
I am not sure either of our Malatis know that much about sahaja dharma and how it is practiced. The sahaja tradition is at least as old as CV and probably older. After Mahaprabhu especially after his identification as the combined form of Radha and Krsna (in Kavikarnapura and Krsnadas Kaviraja), many Buddhist sahajiyas and free-flooting Vaisnava sahajiyas converted to CV and became proponents of Caitanya Vaisnava Sahajiyaism. Some have argued that the very move to interpret Mahaprabhu as the combined form of R and K was influenced by a pre-existing Vaisnava Sahajiya tradition associated with Candidas (perhaps the author of the Sri Krsnakirtana). So CV and CSV are very close to each other historically and in some cases very hard to distinguish from each other. I wrote my master's thesis at the U of Chicago trying to do just that, mostly because I was appalled at the way Ed Dimock had confused them so thoroughly in his Place of the Hidden Moon.
Anyway, it is not as nasty and immoral a tradition as Malati makes it out to be. We should be reluctant to apply westernized moral judgments (which are really cultural and therefore quite arbitrary) to such practices. It is a set of religious practices (sadhana) that is, in part, meant to free us from such arbitrary moral ideologies in the first place. Like all sadhanas it is undertaken with a spiritual goal in mind (not for the sake of immorality) and requires training and guidance to learn to do it well. I myself cannot imagine how it would be possible to engage in prolonged coitus without being swept away by ejaculation. But there are breathing methods, rhythms, visualizations and other methods to keep that from happening and to help the practitioners to learn to control their desires. I once met a Sahajiya guru in Navadvip named Atalbihari (Unmoving Coitus) Das who claimed that he had practiced for over 12 years every night with various partners (yes married to other men) without ever dropping his seed. He was bragging of course, but if true that is quite an achievement. Naturally orthodox CV frowns upon it, well more than frowns; it condemns it. But it is still our nearest neighbor and shares many common practices and much theology.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jan 25, 2011 13:38:20 GMT -6
I thought of responding few points posted by Nitai Das Ji. If you want someone to tell you that the Bhagavata is 5000 years old and was written by Vyasa, you should go to one of those lying phonies. If you want someone to tell you that Krsna actually spoke the Bhagavad-gita, you should go to one of the lying phonies. We have to be very carefull in chosing our word, specially while writing. "Lying Phonies" to all great previous acharyaas with lack of due thought definitely would not help us in the path of "Satyam Param Dhimahi" but surely would stop us because of Aparadha which we are so concerned in this board from other sources. Rather we can give due thought and consider it's validity. I was doing some serious study on that point since I returned from US. I would urge Sri Nitai Das Ji to open a new thread and cited the example and argumements in favour of his claim. Possibly refuting Sri Valdeva's Siddhdhanta Darpan point by point can be one such steps. I also would urgue Sri Nitai Das Ji to go through introduction of Prabhupad Sri RadhaVinode Goswami's Bengali Srimad Bhagavatam written by another stalwart Prabhupad Sri Narayan Chandra Goswami and refute his arguments too. We may consider other sources as well as apropriate. It may take some time , but would be a worthwhile reseach and exploration rather than going by hearsay. Jay Nitai Well, of course, subrataji, I was not referring to the previous acaryas. They were not phonies. They were all duly initiated into the tradition and were vast scholars and great bhaktas. Their scholarship and devotion to the tradition is unquestionable. Their scholarship was however limited to the times they lived in. They did not have access to the information and tools that we have today. Surely you don't believe that we don't know more about the history of India and the production of texts than they did back in the 18th century or even in the early parts of the 20th century. Great advancements have been made in historiography and in the tools of textual criticism. We can now analyze texts in ways undreamed of before the 20th century. We now have access to manuscripts of the Bhagavata from all over India and I am glad to say that there is now a critical edition of the Bhagavata that is available for people who want to know the real history of its production and dissemination, its various recensions, the history of its reception in different part of India, etc. Why should we pay attention to the views of Baladeva on these matters when he had access to none of this information? Would he himself, if he were alive today, still cling to his views if he knew what we know today? I sincerely doubt it. Is it a necessary part of our faith as Caitanya Vaisnavas to cling to every statement an acarya has made even if it has been clearly proven to be wrong? I don't think so. There is undoubtedly a great wealth of truth in Baladeva's writings and that should be our focus, The things he and the others got wrong should be chalked up to having access to only limited resources during their lifetimes. As far as the thread to discuss this is concerned, I am happy to open one up. Maybe this issue needs to be settled for once and for all so we can all move on to less fragmented and antiquated perspectives. I do not have access to the introduction by Prabhupada Narayan Chand Goswami that you mention. I would like to see it. I do have Dr Radhagovinda Nath's long introduction in Bengali to his incomplete edition and translation of the Bhagavata. He argues if I recall correctly, for the antiquity of the Bhagavata perhaps using some of the same arguments that Narayan Chand Goswami does. Sure, let's look at them one by one and test them to see if they have any validity. At the very least this will provide everyone with an understanding of the issues involved. If you can acquire NC Goswami's introduction for me, I will be glad to include that, too. I have Baladeva's work already. I met Prabhupada Narayan Chand Goswami several years ago with my Vedanta teacher who was one of his students. His scholarship, especially in Nyaya, is vast. Is he still among the living?
|
|
|
Post by malati on Jan 25, 2011 15:03:33 GMT -6
I don't know exactly what Jagat's ideas are, but I would say that most devotees have a misconception about Sahajya, which is strongly influenced by IGM perception of it. We can see that in the books of AC Bhaktivedanta Swami, who - even though strongly preaching against it, was deeply influenced by it, as was Bhaktivinode Thakur. Unintentionally he promotes the same ideas as the Sahajiyas, namely that kama and prema are not different in essence, only in their appearance. Sahajiyas claim that kama is inside us, but it is originally prema, and we only need to purify it to achieve prema. Which is exactly SP's philosophy. Material lust is a perverted reflexion of spiritual love. However, prema is Krishna's svarupa sakti and has absolutely nothing to do with tatastha sakti's kama. Malatimanjari Thanks for that finer points. Of course everything comes from Krishna-- that's a no-brainer-- and our purposes here on this planet is to learn to distinguish what activities will help us reach our respective goals. Nitaidas, I have read about Jagat's ideas; I used to follow his blog. and I've read about it on the net, different takes from different people , not just from ex-GV devotees/students. Of course, they try to philosophize their path. To be honest what irritates me about Jagat is that he seems to pass off his system as a GV system. I've read your brief note on the history of Sahaja. In my opinion, to those who are really interested in the GV path, you need not take a detour to Jagat's hut. My simple opinion is this: just understand the way the GV foundational acharyas lived their lives and relate that to what they wrote (read from neutral sources, preferably). You will then have a robust understanding of their intentions for a GV sangha (community of devotees). Nitaidas, I didnt grow up in the west and so I'm not applying a westernized moral concepts on Jagat. I see "immorality" when I see one. Btw, the topic of morality/ethics is a huge topic, it's still being debated today as from the day of Aristotle. However, I have shown in my previous post the questionable utilitarian value of the sahajiya practices. One SP disciple who is a friend of mine told me that when he saw Jagat's erstwhile sexual partner's husband, he was really screwed-up. How is that for a utilitarian value to the sahajiya dharma , what to speak of to the transcendental goal? If I have to call someone phony, it will Jagat. And it would be good if you can start a new thread about the history of the Bhagavatas, how old were they, were they all written in the same span of time, etc. I am one who believe in the ontological reality of the Krishna rasalila but i do not care much about its epistemology, or the source of that knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jan 25, 2011 15:59:24 GMT -6
Nitaidas, I have read about Jagat's ideas; I used to follow his blog. and I've read about it on the net, different takes from different people , not just from ex-GV devotees/students. Of course, they try to philosophize their path. To be honest what irritates me about Jagat is that he seems to pass off his system as a GV system. I've read your brief note on the history of Sahaja. In my opinion, to those who are really interested in the GV path, you need not take a detour to Jagat's hut. My simple opinion is this: just understand the way the GV foundational acharyas lived their lives and relate that to what they wrote (read from a neutral sources, preferably). You will then have a robust understanding of their intentions for a GV sangha (community of devotees). Nitaidas, I didnt grow up in the west and so I'm not applying a westernized moral concepts on Jagat. I see "immorality" when I see one. Btw, the topic of morality/ethics is a huge topic, it's still being debated today as from the day of Aristotle. However, I have shown in my previous post the questionable utilitarian value of the sahajiya practices. One SP disciple who is a friend of mine told me that when he saw Jagat's erstwhile sexual partner's husband, he was really screwed-up. How is that for a utilitarian value to the sahajiya dharma , what to speak of to the transcendental goal? If I have to call someone phony, it will Jagat. One does not need to have been born in the West to be influenced by westernized ethics. It has spread all over the world. Monogamy and all the rules that go with it are largely a Western (Roman) style of marriage. Polyandry and Polygamy were perfectly good, moral options for large portions of humankind in the past (and even at present among small groups). I am surprised that you are so judgmental with respect to Jagat and also surprised that you are not more self-aware (ie, aware of your own biases) than you are. Jagat could well be sincere in his representation of his sahaja dharma as GV or CV. There are texts in the sahaja tradition that make that kind of claim, that it is the real CV. One text called the Vivarta-vilasa claims that all the Goswamis had their partners (sadhikas) and even names them! Mahaprabhu too had his, according to this text! Anyway, we don't accept that text as authentic. Nor do we recommend that anyone visit Jagat's hut. But I don't think that calls for judging Jagat severely. It is a different tradition. IGM is phony because they claim to be part of a tradition that they are not part of. Jagat is part of the sahaja dharma tradition which claims to be the real CV tradition. You might call the tradition phony, but not necessarily Jagat. Many of the members of the sahaja tradition are in fact initiated in genuine lineages. They generally trace their diksa lineages back to Mukunda Goswami, a disciple of Krsnadas Kaviraja. I am sure Lalita Prasad Thakur would not be happy with Jagat's choice. But that is between them. I still prefer Jagat to any IGM blowhard.
|
|
|
Post by malati on Jan 25, 2011 16:36:41 GMT -6
Polyandry and Polygamy were perfectly good, moral options for large portions of humankind in the past (and even at present among small groups).
That is the point-- it's in the past. The evolution of society has been trending on exclusivity. Just look around. There are studies on the utilitarian values of polygamous/polyamorous arrangement on its social effect on children and other things....
I am surprised that you are so judgmental with respect to Jagat and also surprised that you are not more self-aware (ie, aware of your own biases) than you are.
Of course I have biases like everyone else. But I believe I'm slightly bias than you are. Look at my previous post and in all my posts on your forum. For example, I mentioned in good light on the same post, Tripurari Swami, Sri Ananta das Babaji and Srila Narayan Maharaj.
But what I sense from your comments on this forum is your across-the-board blatant summarily dismissing or was that dishing of all IGMers. Don't you think Krishna will be flexible enough out of mercy to do away for the sincere IGM Vaishnavas the "pre-requisite" for a real "initiation" if these seekers are crying out for his mercy?
Also regarding aparadha on the side of IGM, dont you think it's time to bury the hatchet after 150 yeras, once and for all and bridge the gap and let us all live and let live, at least for all those trying to spread this beautiful knowledge of Krishna concsiousness.
Jagat could well be sincere in his representation of his sahaja dharma as GV or CV. There are texts in the sahaja tradition that make that kind of claim, that it is the real CV. One text called the Vivarta-vilasa claims that all the Goswamis had their partners (sadhikas) and even names them! Mahaprabhu too had his, according to this text! Anyway, we don't accept that text as authentic. Nor do we recommend that anyone visit Jagat's hut. But I don't think that calls for judging Jagat severely. It is a different tradition.
Well, Jagat having been a Univ. teacher and a seller/buyer in the market of ideas, should expect not happy/annoyed players in the market. And one of the annoyed players is me. Besides, if we are all the same in thinking, this world will be boring.
I am sure Lalita Prasad Thakur would not be happy with Jagat's choice. But that is between them.
I agree.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jan 25, 2011 17:22:11 GMT -6
Polyandry and Polygamy were perfectly good, moral options for large portions of humankind in the past (and even at present among small groups). That is the point-- it's in the past. The evolution of society has been trending on exclusivity. Just look around. There are studies on the utilitarian values of polygamous/polyamorous arrangement on its social effect on children and other things....
Evolution is blind. My point was that such "moralities" are purely arbitrary. Studies to the contrary, there is no evidence that any of them is morally superior. I have no idea what Krsna will do. Nor do I have any way of gaging whether any of them are sincere. What indication do we have that it is all a thing of the past? All of their "acaryas" have engaged in it. Who can say that it is not still going or that it will not happen again in the future? The passages are still there in their books and no one has disowned them. I don't think it is up to me to bury the hatchet. It still protrudes out of the bodies of the babas and caste goswamis. It is not up to me to remove it. I didn't put it there. I basically don't want to have anything to do with them. Why should I? They are not the sanga for me. Why is that wrong?
|
|
|
Post by malati on Jan 25, 2011 18:44:02 GMT -6
Nitaidasji
I have 3 PMs for you about the book.
|
|
|
Post by openmind on Jan 26, 2011 0:50:53 GMT -6
Even though I express my opinion and talk about some bitter experiences when the subject comes up, I agree with those saying that there is not much use in constantly meditating upon why IGM is bad. There definitely are sincere sadhakas in IGM circles, just as much as there are phonies in the non-IGM camp. Without mentioning any names, I am sure we all agree that flying to India and taking "real diksha" guarentees nothing. It is a chance, a good start, but it is all up to the individuals what they make of this possibility. Falling down and doing crazy things is not a prerogative of IGM.
|
|
sita
Full Member
Posts: 106
|
Post by sita on Jan 26, 2011 6:13:42 GMT -6
Yes I agree, one can never judge another's devotion it is internal. Lord Gauranga can dance in the hearts of whom ever He wishes, Lord Nityananda can empower whom ever He pleases. Linage, cast, colour, creed ect and so on are of of no concern to Them. They are ever free to bless regardless of any and all external considerations. Who has the ability to attract such blessings is the most fortunate and successful soul, despite appearing to be of no consequence to others.
"Just as the leaf of the Lotus Flower lying upon the pond remains untouched by the water, so the soul who acts in a spirit of full surrender to the Supreme Person remains ever-free from the taint of blame." Bhagavad Gita 5th chapter 10th verse Translation Vijay Acharya.
|
|
|
Post by malatimanjari on Jan 27, 2011 8:45:11 GMT -6
"the identification of kama and prema (which Malatimanjari pointed out just recently in commenting on Jagat's turn to sahaja dharma, though I would certainly like to ask for more clarification from her on this, especially with respect to where BVS claims this"
There are several points I would like to point out. I certainly don't claim to be an expert on Sahajiya philosophy, and these points may not apply to all form, but certainly to some of the them. So here are the parallels to ABVS:
1. the living entity is sat-cit-ananda
2. bhakti or prema is dormant in the living enity (this can already be found in Bhaktivinode Thakur's writings). The very term 'sahaja' means The term 'sahaja’ is means 'inborn or which one is born with'
2. The difference kama and prema lies only in the mode of action, that means in form but not in essence. It depends how you use it. If the kama is expressed in a pure manner it is prema. When prema becomes polluted, it is kama.
ACBSP in Krishna book: "This Krishna-katha will also be very much appealing to the most materialistic persons because Krishna's pastimes with the gopis (cowherd girls) are exactly like the loving affairs between young girls and boys within this material world. Actually, the sex feeling found in human society is not unnatural, because this same sex feeling is there in the original Personality of Godhead. The pleasure potency is called Srimati Radharani. The attraction of loving affairs on the basis of sex feeling is the original feature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and we, the conditioned souls, being part and parcel of the Supreme, have such feelings also, but they are experienced within a perverted, minute condition. Therefore, when those who are after sex life in this material world hear about Krishna's pastimes with the gopis, they will relish transcendental pleasure, although it appears to be materialistic."
Purport to BG 3.37: "When a living entity comes in contact with the material creation, his eternal love for Krishna is transformed into lust, in association with the mode of passion. Or, in other words, the sense of love of God becomes transformed into lust, as milk in contact with sour tamarind is transformed into yogurt."
It is the same principle, kama becomes transformed into prema, but it the same stuff, just perverted.
Another problem is that he often explains Krishna's bahiranga sakti to be illusory, which is what Advaitins are claim (brahma satya, jagat mithya). often compares the material world to a dream (purport to SB 1.1.1) ... even though in some places he also says it is real, but temporary.
|
|
|
Post by Nitaidas on Jan 27, 2011 10:56:41 GMT -6
Even though I express my opinion and talk about some bitter experiences when the subject comes up, I agree with those saying that there is not much use in constantly meditating upon why IGM is bad. There definitely are sincere sadhakas in IGM circles, just as much as there are phonies in the non-IGM camp. Without mentioning any names, I am sure we all agree that flying to India and taking "real diksha" guarentees nothing. It is a chance, a good start, but it is all up to the individuals what they make of this possibility. Falling down and doing crazy things is not a prerogative of IGM. Yes, I agree. It is a waste of time and energy to focus constantly on the bad in IGM. What I think should be made clearer is the distinction between IGM and mainstream CV. I get the impression that some of our members don't see one. Aren't we all really brothers and sisters in the same tradition? Aren't we co-religiionists? Well, no we aren't. IGM is not a sect of CV. A sect is a part of an older or wider tradition that breaks off and heads in a new or old direction. IGM was founded by Bhaktisiddhanta. It is a new religion. True, it is deeply influenced by the older CV tradition, but Bhaktisiddhanta never joined that tradition, never really received anything from it. IGM is based on his own vision and his own insight, his own claims. If you have faith in that vision, then you should join that tradition. If you want the older CV tradition then you should join that. But don't confuse the two. It is also important in my view to correct the apasiddhantas promoted by IGM. Confusing an apasiddhanta for a siddhanta is a powerful impediment to advancement on the path and those should be rooted out as much as possible. Those are not the sole property of the IGMers, however, as gerardji pointed out. Still, for those of us who have come out of IGM most of the apasiddhantas we carry with us were put there by IGM. So I think it is important to focus our attention on discovering those and correcting them. Therefore I think that discussion should continue, not as a criticism of IGM but as an effort to try to set things straight, to try to understand what the real teachings of CV are. The teachings are not the only thing, however. One must also learn how to do the sadhana properly. The various lineages in the CV tradition have variations in how sadhana is to be done. One should learn how to do sadhana from the lineage one joins. The differences are not huge, but they are significant. That does not separate us so much as give us a bit of variety. The emphasis in sadhana is often on what works the best. My own gurudev who is in the Nityananda lineage went to study bhajan from Siddha Manohar Das Babaji who is in the Advaita lineage (I believe). Why? Because Siddha Manohar Das Babaji's kind of sadhana was deemed most effective. So there is a lot of cross influence in the tradition, as well. Yes, it is true that flying to India to get diksa will not guarantee you a spot in a bower, but it is a necessary first step. It is the start of the journey. How the journey goes after that is up to the initiate, how sincere he or she is, how well trained she is, how much good sanga he or she gets, and ultimately the grace of Nityananda and Gauranga. It won't be easy. But as Dr. Kapoor was fond of saying, for every step one takes towards Krsna, however small or tentative or shaky, Krsna takes ten towards his bhakta. Why should we depend on him to do all the work? Isn't that the same as making him our servant? Shouldn't it be the other way around? It seems to me that those who are expecting Gauranga to come and dance in their hearts are taking an awful big chance. I am not saying it never happens, but it is very rare. Rather than wait to win the lottery one should get to work and try to capture his attention. That starts with guru-asraya which means diksa.
|
|