Is our sampradaya’s credibility weakened because of having shiksha links instead of diksha links?

Answer Podcast

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Okay. So, in other sampradayas, there is direct diksha connection, whereas in other sampradayas, sometimes there is shiksha connection, more than diksha connection. So, sometimes some people have questions about this.
How do we strengthen their faith in the proper, in the propriety of our sampradaya? Two main things here. Even if you look at the sampradayas, which a sampradaya it is, they may keep their lineage. This person was initiated by this person, this person was initiated by this person, but initiation alone is no guarantor of proper continuation.
So, even within the most sampradayas, they also have what they call as heretical lines. Heresy means somebody, deviation basically. So, somebody is initiated by X, initiated by Y, but then that X goes off from the teachings of Y. And the subsequent line is, it will branch off into two.
And then, which is the main line, then we say that this is a deviation. Just the fact that there is a proper diksha is no guarantor that there will be proper, accurate explanation of everything. That’s the first point.
Second point is that we have to see, essentially, if the message is being continued. Diksha is important, but if you see, the concept of diksha is very flex, is not monolithic or is not not absolutized everywhere. In Sri sampradaya, if you see, they have the conception of a guru is primarily a grantha guru.
That means, if I want to see the Bhagavad Gita, study the Bhagavad Gita, I go under a particular guru and study under him. If I want to study the Bhagavatam, I go to a particular guru and study under him. So, the study, again, Ramanuja like that had 12 gurus.
And although he had one initiating guru, but his instructions were not limited to that one alone. And the whole idea that one diksha guru, and who is one diksha guru, that is all important, or that is the only important thing, that is not reflective of the history of the tradition. So, one of Ramacharya’s early gurus was actually, the other Prakash, was some sort of impersonalist.
Not exactly impersonalist, but he had some concept, wasn’t it? Yes. So, he corrected him afterwards and later on he was delivered. So, if we see from the formal connection point of view, if we go beyond the formal, so, if we go beyond the prominent systematizers of the tradition, then we will see that there are, that means there is, from Ramanuja, one connection will go to the Supreme Lord through Acharya, from others it will go to their official guru also.
So, even in their tradition, if you consider their systematizers, prominent Acharyas, there it doesn’t go linearly backwards, there is a vertical branching off over there. So, the point is that the unbrokenness of the tradition is more in terms of the continuation of the essential wisdom. So, the parampara is essentially a link of hearts.
It is not just a link of formal, doctrinal or institutional affiliation. It is a link of hearts. So, a follower of a particular teacher feels inspired to see how that particular teacher is living according to pure devotional principles.
Living such a life of selfless loving service to God and all people and then feels inspired to follow in those footsteps and then does so according to one’s time, place, circumstances. In a way that is best for the people over there. So, if you understand this principle, then there is a legalistic understanding of bhakti.
That legalistic means, you know, just as in law, everything, all the details have to be correct. This is the law, this is the law, this is the law, this is the law. If we get into an excessively legalistic understanding of bhakti, we will miss out on the essential vibrancy of bhakti.
The essential vibrancy is the potency of bhakti is that the mercy of this parampara is passed down in the heart of the faithful follower in a succession of generations. So, it’s a link of hearts. The heart is not just, and it’s not just a link of, shiksha also, shiksha is not just raw knowledge.
It is, shiksha is the inspiration to practice bhakti. It is the inspiration to transform one’s heart. And once we understand this principle, then many of the technicalities about the specifics of initiation, even when they don’t seem so important.
Even when we are preaching, we shouldn’t excessively emphasize the sampradaya aspect. We may quote sampradaya, vinaya, mantras, dineshapalmata. Without sampradaya, mantra doesn’t work.
That is one way of preaching, but today, how many people really care for the sampradaya? See, in our own preaching, if initially we overemphasize the point of sampradaya, then later on when these sort of issues come, we have ourselves given it too much importance, then we will run into trouble. Sampradaya is definitely an important point in making the knowledge authentic, but that is not the only thing that always makes knowledge authentic and that is not necessarily the way people gain credibility. People find our message credible.
We gain credibility in people’s eyes. So, it is the overall coherence of the wisdom, overall potency of the process, the overall example of those who are trying to live that message. All that contributes to transforming people.
So, once we help people see Krishna consciousness as a package and not that our sampradaya connection is our sole claim to authority. If that is emphasized initially, overemphasized initially, then that may become a problem later. But if we give people an understanding of Krishna consciousness as a whole package, then they will not get too caught up in technicalities and then they will be able to focus more on understanding how the essential potency of Krishna’s mercy comes down through the tradition whether there is a formal connection by deeksha or there is an informal connection through shiksha.