Please help...

..

 

Hard to say - there are many Indian spiritual teachers. Usually they are called Guru.

Is it the identity of a particular teacher you're after?

Also, in India and Pakistan are Sufis, mystical followers of Islam, who often work in groups, and who have teachers, some of whom are reputed to be able to give light and spiritual experience to their followers - one term for these teachers is Sheik.

Don't know if that helps....

 

Aside from Guru, three words come to mind:

Shaktipat: The transmission of spiritual energy from an enlightened master to a disciple; often associated with Kundalini yoga

Darshan: The upliftment of consciousness caused by being in the presence of an individual exceeding one's own level of consciousness

Satsang: A spiritually-oriented gathering usually centered around a spiritual teacher of some type

Travis

 

Thanks so much, Shaktipat is the term I was looking for, I was very intrigued by it, more so kundalini energies but I am very excited right now.

Would you recommend any web-sites or places of information I can read up on?

Thanks again

 

This sort of sounds like Deeksha.
What is the difference?

 

Glad I could help.

This site: http://www.llewellynjournal.com/article/358 seemed fairly informative and comprehensive. And I'm sure Google will offer you many jumping off points as well.

Travis

 

Deeksha is technically just an initiation ritual that may or may not involve Shaktipat.

If it's a good Deeksha, then it will.

Travis

 

Swami Muktananda speaks of it in his autobiography "Play of Consciousness".

It's basically basking the the guru's light. You absorb things by proximity, just as if you were standing near a heater for warmth or a lamp for light. He gives off what you need.

It can also come as a touch or glance or a voice. It imparts a brief glance sometimes of what the guru sees. Like a divine spark from master to seeker. Has the power of internal transformation.

Not unlike Saul into Paul.



x

 

Hare Krishna!

Swami Muktananda Paramahansa's book, "Chitsakti Vilasa" is a wonderful book for the purpose.

Also a great help can be obtained from anybody from the lineage :

Mahavatar Babaji > Shyamacharan Lahiri > Yukteshwar Giri > Swami Yogananda > Swami Satyananda > Swami Hariharananda.

However, unless one's mind and health is ready, all efforts become fruitless.

Love,

Kumar.

 

Yogananda himself said that he would not even recognize the establishment that was left in his wake, if he could come back after his death.

 

Because establishments are based on belief.

A holy man clears them like weeds in a garden.




x

 

Not necessary at all. Each person's path is different. A "good" diksha need not have shaktipat or any other component at all. A diksha is an initiation into a mantra, or into a stage of life - weddings are a diksha as is the initiation into monkhood.

Even a glance from a master, a few simple words, or a gift of food can be a diksha. Every moment with a master can be a diksha for a qualified student, as it can push her into the next level of higher wisdom and practice.

To say that to be "good" a diksha must involve shaktipat is no better than the Christian missionary saying you cannot be blessed unless you cast aside thousands of years of your heritage and join our church.

 

On the contrary -- reducing a Deeksha to a mere "initiation" that doesn't involve energetic transference, as you have, is exactly the type of rigid adherence to tradition and ritual that characterizes a "Christian missionary" mentality.

But I suspect your criticism is based less on dogmatism and more upon a lack of understanding of what Shaktipat is at its essence.

Travis

 

Hare Krishna !

From Radareyes.....

Originally Posted by Bhaskar
Not necessary at all. Each person's path is different. A "good" diksha need not have shaktipat or any other component at all. A diksha is an initiation into a mantra, or into a stage of life - weddings are a diksha as is the initiation into monkhood.

Even a glance from a master, a few simple words, or a gift of food can be a diksha. Every moment with a master can be a diksha for a qualified student, as it can push her into the next level of higher wisdom and practice.

To say that to be "good" a diksha must involve shaktipat is no better than the Christian missionary saying you cannot be blessed unless you cast aside thousands of years of your heritage and join our church.


On the contrary -- reducing a Deeksha to a mere "initiation" that doesn't involve energetic transference, as you have, is exactly the type of rigid adherence to tradition and ritual that characterizes a "Christian missionary" mentality.

But I suspect your criticism is based less on dogmatism and more upon a lack of understanding of what Shaktipat is at its essence.

Travis


Dear,

If I am not wrong Bhaskar not only knows what he is saying, he knows what Shaktipat is, as well. Only thing is he would have done better if the Christian Missionery thing was not brought into the topic as an example.

There is nothing like good initiation or bad initiation because even if the Master is a fake one, all the initiations carry a Mantra bearing God's name which is not fake. How the initiation will work always depends on the disciple who receives it. That is why it is said, "Guru mile hazaro, chela mile na koi" (Difficult to get a disciple where as Masters are there in thousands). Deeksha is initiation into spiritual path. This, when practised properly, prepares us (Mentally and physically) to receive the transcendental lights, thoughts and revealations. Shaktipat is applicable to only those who are ready mentally and physically to receive it. The right Master knows who is ready and who is not. Bhaskar is absolutely right to say that even Deeksha is not necessary to receive Shakti from great teachers if one is ready for it. One glance, gifts, words, mere touches can do wonders of Shaktipat. Remember, Sri Ramakrishna did the same thing to Swami Vivekananda although He was not Vivekananda's Guru then. Why the same treatment was not given to the others who used to go to Him ?

It is a big mistake if Shaktipat is thought to be a short-cut method to reach our goal. Not at all. It must always be emphasized in clear terms that there is no short-cut in God-realization. Practice, practice and practice is the way, Shaktipat automatically happens through the Grace of the Lord when we become ready to receive it. It is God's grace and compassion upon us that it does not happen overnight, because in that case we will perish the next moment.

Love,

Kumar.

 

Mantras are like spiritual training wheels. You utilize them until you can sustain the energy that they impart on a purely energetic level. This is why a Deeksha that includes Shaktipat will always be more effective than one that doesn't, because it bypasses the conceptual realm entirely. The energetic realm has been given the highest priority.

True, but a disciple capable of receiving Shaktipat has a greater chance of progressing towards higher states of consciousness than does one who can only receive a mantra.

Deeksha is only initiation onto a spiritual path if it is an authentic Deeksha. Otherwise, it's just the spiritual equivalent a little boy dressing up in his father's business suit and for a moment believing he has a job.

Actually, that's not what Bhaskar said. He said:

What he apparently doesn't realize is that all of these phenomena include Shaktipat, hence my assertion that he lacks understanding of what Shaktipat is at its essence.

No, I don't remember, because you're presumably referencing events associated with the spiritual lineage that you're affiliated with and for some reason assuming that they're common knowledge.

Good thing I never implied it was then.

Not necessarily. More often than not, it's, "practice, practice, practice" that separates us from our "goal".

No, it is not God's grace and compassion upon us that enables all events to unfold exactly as they should. It is the nature of reality.

Travis

 

All I was saying is that I cannot accept when someone says "This way is better than all the others." Hinduism and spirituality in general is too diverse to reduce it to one form of initiation or practice or anything. So no, I am not being dogmatic. I am just saying there are other ways out there and it makes me very uncomfortable when anyone tries to say all other paths are subservient to theirs. And that's what I meant by the Christian missionaries, who teach a beautiful and true gospel, but they feel the need to tear others down in order to promote it.

 

I got confused with how you used capable here.
If someone wasn't capable, would they not be able to receive Shaktipat entirely (because of some restrictions on their awareness), or would they just never be given the chance (based on an outsiders judgement)?

Also, who can give Shaktipat? Are we talking, only enlightened masters here?

 

I think perhaps your (understandable) discomfort with people proclaiming that their path is the "one true path" has caused you to read too much into my initial statement. I was simply saying that the most effective Deekshas will always place more emphasis upon energy then they will upon ritual and/or technique.

Travis

 

If someone were incapable, it would be based upon the condition of their awareness and the degree to which they had infused higher consciousness into their body, rather than an outsider's judgement -- although at high enough levels of consciousness, the two factors become inseparable.

Shaktipat in its purest form would only be capable of being transmitted by an enlightened master, but really, we all offer each other our own mini version of shaktipat just by having intermingled energy fields and remote psychic connections. If you look lovingly into the eyes of the cashier at a supermarket, you are giving Shaktipat.

Travis

 

I'm not going to pretend to be knowledgable enough to be able to produce a scale of intensity for what counts as Shaktipat or not, but personally, I wouldn't use the word so casually as that.

But perhaps I'm a bit biased, having experienced the energetic, impersonal variety of it.