Pariprashnena — Q&A Archive

IMHO, new name, as in re-initiation it is offensive. Taking siksha is their undeniable prerogative.

Also, IMHO, re-initiation is offensive. The GM gurus should know this and refuse to do the re-initiation. Also, IMHO, the disciple asking for the re-initiation is showing little faith in Srila Prabhupada by doing this.

Cants see why anyone would want to do this, unless it is a desperate attempt to get away from the GBC and Iskcon.

[quote][cite] hariharibol:[/cite]Cants see why anyone would want to do this, unless it is a desperate attempt to get away from the GBC and Iskcon.[/quote]

I recently heard that all the family of Bhagavan das[ex-guru]are now reinitiated by a GM guru!There seems to be hundreds,mainly in France.
They expect "higher,more confidential " knowledge,which,they claim,was not given by Srila Prabhupada,who taught ABCD....,or simple knowledge!

[quote][cite] Gaurangaliladas:[/cite][quote][cite] hariharibol:[/cite]Cants see why anyone would want to do this, unless it is a desperate attempt to get away from the GBC and Iskcon.[/quote]

I recently heard that all the family of Bhagavan das[ex-guru]are now reinitiated by a GM guru!There seems to be hundreds,mainly in France.
They expect "higher,more confidential " knowledge,which,they claim,was not given by Srila Prabhupada,who taught ABCD....,or simple knowledge![/quote]

Again, lack of faith in Srila Prabhupada and the wonderful gift he gave us.

The grass is greener on the other side of the hill mentality.

I think they have full faith in Prabhupada and are just feed up with non-sense leadership that we have today in Iskcon,better to find peace and calm outside of Iskcon
than smash your head against the wall in frustration.

[quote][cite] hariharibol:[/cite]I think they have full faith in Prabhupada and are just feed up with non-sense leadership that we have today in Iskcon,better to find peace and calm outside of Iskcon
than smash your head against the wall in frustration.[/quote]

They have full faith in Srila Prabhupada so they become re-initiated elsewhere?

According to GM,Srila Prabhupada did not give all instructions regarding devotional service!
Judge for yourself!

http://iskcon.krishna.org/Articles/2001/02/00255.html

Srila Prabhupada:"I have given you my will.Execute it!"
http://www.oldchakra.com/articles/2001/07/01/reinitiation/index.htm

Gaura-Keshavas (undated) report to the GBC recently published on the Sun website concludes that re-initiation is not supported by sastra. Having a fallen vaishnava guru is not a reason for re-initiation either inside or outside Iskcon. (The paper is at http://harekrsna.com/sun/editorials/10-07/editorials2101.htm)

The quotes used to support this position are:
Caitanya Caritamrta Adi 1.35, purport:
'93A devotee must have only one initiating spiritual master because in the scriptures acceptance of more than one is always forbidden. There is no limit, however, to the number of instructing spiritual masters one may accept."

Hari-bhkait-vilas, 4.144, purport (of Sanatana Goswami):
'93marga stho vapy amarga sthah'94
'93Whether he is situated on the path or off the path (of devotional service) the (Vaisnava) guru cannot be given up'94.

The only circumstance where re-initiation is allowed is if one has already received initiation by a non-vaishnava as indicated in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa 4.144: '93One who is initiated into a mantra by a non-Vaisnava must go to hell. Therefore he should again be initiated properly, according to the prescribed method, by a Vaisnava guru.'94

Garua-Keshava writes: "Therefore, as pointed out by many Vaisnavas, including Bhaktivinode Thakura and Nara Hari Sarkara (in their books Jaiva Dharma, Hari Nam Cintamani and Sri Krishna Bhajanamrta) the disciple needs only to find a suitable siksha guru to again guide him on the path of spiritual life. The word diksha is never used by these authors, thus indicating there is no re-initiation."

Based on these findings, is there much difference between gurus in Iskcon who re-initiate and gurus outside of Iskcon who re-intitiate?

They could even take shelter of another gaudiya institution if they had big problems in ISKCON (not uncommon). But, take reinitation and change name, why? If the spiritual master is not fallen, just because he passed away?
That denotes a weak understanding and wobbly faith having to have a "living" guru in those circumstances. Would they go to another guru after NM leaves his body? Probably.

There is one instance of reinitiation in Caitanya-caritamrita. Gadadhara Pandit was advised by Mahaprabhu to receive mantra from Pundarika Vidyanidhi to atone for his offense against him.

In other historical instances, Syamananda Pandit took a new name from Jiva Goswami. Previously he was initiated and given the name Dukhi Krishna das by Hrdaya Caitanya das. It was a big scandal at the time.

These two instances demonstrate that you cant simply say: "Its bogus". It depends on who, what and how. Although there are guidelines, there are also circumstances that dictate how those guidelines should be applied, and there are exceptions. Nothing is written in stone.

In other words, to give a definitive opinion on a case, a specific case would have to be examined.

However, we can say that *generally speaking* it is not the done thing, which is why Syamananda Pandit caused such a stir.

I think the term *generally speaking* gives undue consideration to the exception. Id say a more appropriate term would be *practically always.* It is a principle, which means the rule applies 99.9% of the time. To emphasize the exception at the expense of the rule is not a correct representation of the philosophy. Its like the principle that you cant fall from the spiritual sky - there may be exceptions as Prabhupada seems to indicate, but the principle is what the acaryas preach.

Id like to ask what is the practical benefit of being re-initiated? Is it just re-establishing connection with the parampara?

[quote][cite] sitapati:[/cite]There is one instance of reinitiation in Caitanya-caritamrita. Gadadhara Pandit was advised by Mahaprabhu to receive mantra from Pundarika Vidyanidhi to atone for his offense against him.
[/quote]
Receiving mantra is one thing. Receiving SAME mantra is another. First is acceptable, second is an offence.
[quote]
In other historical instances, Syamananda Pandit took a new name from Jiva Goswami. Previously he was initiated and given the name Dukhi Krishna das by Hrdaya Caitanya das. [/quote] Hold down a second. Jive did not give him this name or his tilaka, [quote]It was a big scandal at the time.[/quote]Exactly. Because if Jiva did it would be taken as if HCd was a demon or non-vaisnava. [quote]

These two instances demonstrate that you cant simply say: "Its bogus". [/quote]No they do not. Exactly opposite. Reinitinations by others of SP disciples "is Bogus". Because both cases talk about something else. In fact it is the current conclusion of most on GBCs and GBC does not recommend re-initiation even if your guru fell. Conclusive. There is no need to multiply the hurt. [quote]It depends on who, what and how. [/quote] yes okay. WHO - if ones guru is a "asura bhava" or "non-vaisnava", WHAT - that is if ANOTHER mantra is given ie if its not RE-initiation, and finally HOW - for example if after guru left the planet another gives mantra or sannyas name or babaji name and mantra then its accepted. In this case in question. No. Full stop.[quote]Although there are guidelines, there are also circumstances that dictate how those guidelines should be applied, and there are exceptions. Nothing is written in stone.[/quote]Thats a dangerous statement and that is why ISKCON suffers soooo much.[quote]

In other words, to give a definitive opinion on a case, a specific case would have to be examined.[/quote] I know of a case in Italy, where a lady had 4 gurus, first of them is still chanting etc but now she wants to renounce her last vaisnava guru, who is Prabhupads godbrother, who left the planet and accept reinitiation from yet another current one. Give me a break. How many times should it be done? What a system...of exeptions [quote]

However, we can say that *generally speaking* it is not the done thing, which is why Syamananda Pandit caused such a stir.[/quote] The case of Shyamananda Pandit has nothing to do with proving that its right. its an exeption that confirms the rule. Radharani gave him the name and tilaka, not Jiva Gosvami. Rupa, Sanatana also did not initiate for exception of Jiva Goswami who was a family anyway. Gopala Bhatta was diksa guru, not others.

"The case of Shyamananda Pandit has nothing to do with proving that its right. its an exeption that confirms the rule. Radharani gave him the name and tilaka, not Jiva Gosvami."

ccd, I knew someone was going to say that. Thanks for bringing it up.

My understanding was that it was Lalita-devi who performed the initiation, according to the "Lives of the Vaisnava Saints".

Of course, thats what Jiva Goswamis followers say happened. Hrdaya Caitanya prabhu had another view, and if you were in that line doubtless you would have the story that reflects his perception of what happened. As Winston Churchill said: "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."

There are two sides to every coin, two sides (at least) to every story.

The point here is not to prove that "its always right" or "its always wrong", but that sometimes things happen that reflect a higher reality, and thats not always completely transparent to all involved. The general etiquette is that a duly initiated disciple is not reinitiated by another guru. However, there are exceptions to this general etiquette.

About exceptions "confirming" the rule - the saying is "the exception that *proves* the rule". The meaning of the word "proves" is "to test", (latin probare, which gives us the word probe also). So the original meaning of this saying is that its the exception that puts your generalization to the test, which this one does.

So again, I say it depends on the circumstances. There will be circumstances in which it represents some insincerity on behalf of the disciple. There may also be instances where it represents the unfolding of some higher reality involving the eternal relationships between the personalities involved. We should be very careful, and focus primarily on our own situation. Entering into the realm of personal relationships, especially potentially spiritual ones, and making blanket statements is dangerous and borders on fanaticism.

I would say this:

* If you dont want to get re-initiated then dont do it.

* If you want to withdraw from the association of someone who has been re-initiated, then thats entirely your prerogative.

* Be very, very careful about pronouncing judgment on other people.
It doesnt do anything for *your* spiritual life, and its potentially very dangerous.

Of course, to judge particular persons is dangerous, but equally dangerous is to dismiss the philosophical dialog for clarification of the point, in the name of offenses (again).
And, curiously enough, that is what we are here for.

Were having a philosophical dialog, arent we? :-)

sorry I have seen it so many times that I probably am over-susceptible.

[quote][cite] mishra:[/cite]Of course, to judge particular persons is dangerous, but equally dangerous is to dismiss the philosophical dialog for clarification of the point, in the name of offenses (again).
And, curiously enough, that is what we are here for.[/quote]

That is exactly the point. We are not talking about blaming the individual, but about the principle. And we ourselves should never compromise, if others do, we can say its bogus, but not in a judgemental way, just as a matter of principle.