Nimai

Dear GHari prabhu, I am not that familiar with that term "Officiating Acarya." I would have to research the whole conversation several times to get the gist of it; therefore, right now, I am not at liberty to make comments on that lablel. So, I apologize for speaking without so much knowledge. I'll be more careful next time around. One thing, prabhu,, I am not really attached to it. I know for a fact, that Dhira Govinda prabhu does not care for that label that much either. You are right, Prabhu, that label has nothing to do with the Prominent Link concepts. And those concepts really, truly are not in contradiction with Srila Prabhupada's teachings. Did you read the GBCs response to the book? And did you read the SAC response? They are really very scary.

Dear GHari prabhu, I am not that familiar with that term "Officiating Acarya." I would have to research the whole conversation several times to get the gist of it; therefore, right now, I am not at liberty to make comments on that lablel. So, I apologize for speaking without so much knowledge. I'll be more careful next time around. One thing, prabhu,, I am not really attached to it. I know for a fact, that Dhira Govinda prabhu does not care for that label that much either. You are right, Prabhu, that label has nothing to do with the Prominent Link concepts. And those concepts really, truly are not in contradiction with Srila Prabhupada's teachings. Did you read the GBCs response to the book? And did you read the SAC response? They are really very scary.

Dear Yasodanandana prabhu, You said: so do not be suspicious with me, i am answering messages not judging people..... But, prabhu, you were the one who used the words "deviant" and "ritvik" in your comment about one of my statements. Still, even though I do not know you, I think that you are a nice person and a good devotee. That is just my gut feeling. So, I don't hold any animosity towards you. Someone asked who is Nimai. Well, I am just a person who has read the PL book with an open mind and without preconceive notions (a really, really hard thing to do). Yasodanandana prabhu, from your postings, I sense that you think that the concepts in the Prominent Link are not in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings. But, I assure you, they really are. Please read the PL book for yourself and see what I mean. One thing that people do not understand is that the PL book has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the GBC-ritvik debate. It is a whole other thing. The PL concepts do not talk about initiations or the initiation ceremony. It does not talk about diksa gurus, siksa gurus, ritviks or anything at all connected with the initiation ceremony. The GBC-ritvik thing is a totally different thing. It doesn't matter where one stands in the understanding of the May 28 or the July 9th letter when it comes to the PL concepts. Whatever your understanding of the conversation or the letter, the PL concepts still stand, separate and on its own. What Dhira Govinda prabhu is saying is, to please first and foremost let's define the role of Srila Prabhupada, then and only then can we talk about other matters such as diksa and siksa gurus. That is why, all that the PL book talks about is Srila Prabhupada and his position in ISKCON and his relationship with all of ISKCON members. The book certainly is not against diksa gurus (of course not, that is what Srila Prabhupada wanted). For those who read the Prominent Link book, they can attest that the book is talking about the tranmission of transcendental knowledge. That is the focus of the book. Transmission of transcendental knowledge is the most essential aspect of the process of initiation (noticed, I didn't say intiation ceremony). One important aspect of initiation is the initiation ceremony, but that is one thing that is outside the scope of the Prominent Link book. The GBC-ritvik debate focuses primarily on the formal aspect of the intiation process (an important aspect). But, the PL does not talk about that aspect, it's main focus is (almost entirely) on the essential aspect of the initiation process (noticed I didn't say the formal initiation ceremony), which is the delivery of transcendental knowledge. According to the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, the most important aspect of the initiation process is the transmission of transcendental knowledge. Since Srila Prabhupada is the prime deliverer of transcendental knowledge, he is the main guru. No one should eclipsed his greatness. He is the primary guru for everyone in ISKCON. The PL book is making this very important point. Now, some might say that the most important deliverer of transcendental knowledge is not Srila Prabhupada, fine, then, you are entitled to your opinion. But, for many, their main divya-jñana comes from Srila Prabhupada. So, based on the transmission of transcendental knowledge, Srila Prabhupada is the direct, current, and prominent link to the parampara (link in the sense that he links us to the parampara via divya-jñana). Still, no one is saying that Srila Prabhupada is the only link (only the ritviks say that) or that the link stops with Srila Prabhupada. He is the main link, that is all. He is the main link because he is the Vaisnava who directly gives transcendental knowledge more than any other devotee. So, prabhu Yasodanandana, how can you say that this is "diviant", "ritvik" and "concotion?" It all comes from Srila Prabhupada's teachings. Now, how is all of this have to do with "officiating acaryas." Nothing, really. Still, since I am not a "ritvik" phobic (like most devotees), I cannot deny Srila Prabhupada's clear response to Satvarupa Maharaja when he (Satvarupa Maharaja) asked a clear, open-ended, non-leading question to Srila Prabhupada about how initiations were to be conducted after his physical departure. Srila Prabhupada responded that he would appoint some of his followers to act as Officiating Acaryas. Now Srila Prabhupada's response was very clear. I don't think those in the Toronto meeting with Bhakti Caru Maharaja and and Bhakti Marga Swami were ritviks (at least most of them weren't-I know that Locanananda prabhu is not a ritvik). These devotees are simply non ritvik-phobics. Now, what does all that mean, I don't really know, I am not well verse in this "initiation ceremony" debate, I cannot make any further comment. All I know is what Srila Prabhupada said concerning how initiations were to be conducted after his departure. Since this is a "hot" topic, most likely, there has to be some kind of agreement (probably adjustments, I don't know). The Prominent Link book has nothing to do with the GBC-rivik debate. I sometimes feel that that debate can and will continue forever. That is why, I have no interest in talking about it. Better to talk about the Prominent Link conceptswhich has nothing to do with that ugly debate.

Dear Yasodanandana prabhu, You said: so do not be suspicious with me, i am answering messages not judging people..... But, prabhu, you were the one who used the words "deviant" and "ritvik" in your comment about one of my statements. Still, even though I do not know you, I think that you are a nice person and a good devotee. That is just my gut feeling. So, I don't hold any animosity towards you. Someone asked who is Nimai. Well, I am just a person who has read the PL book with an open mind and without preconceive notions (a really, really hard thing to do). Yasodanandana prabhu, from your postings, I sense that you think that the concepts in the Prominent Link are not in line with Srila Prabhupada's teachings. But, I assure you, they really are. Please read the PL book for yourself and see what I mean. One thing that people do not understand is that the PL book has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the GBC-ritvik debate. It is a whole other thing. The PL concepts do not talk about initiations or the initiation ceremony. It does not talk about diksa gurus, siksa gurus, ritviks or anything at all connected with the initiation ceremony. The GBC-ritvik thing is a totally different thing. It doesn't matter where one stands in the understanding of the May 28 or the July 9th letter when it comes to the PL concepts. Whatever your understanding of the conversation or the letter, the PL concepts still stand, separate and on its own. What Dhira Govinda prabhu is saying is, to please first and foremost let's define the role of Srila Prabhupada, then and only then can we talk about other matters such as diksa and siksa gurus. That is why, all that the PL book talks about is Srila Prabhupada and his position in ISKCON and his relationship with all of ISKCON members. The book certainly is not against diksa gurus (of course not, that is what Srila Prabhupada wanted). For those who read the Prominent Link book, they can attest that the book is talking about the tranmission of transcendental knowledge. That is the focus of the book. Transmission of transcendental knowledge is the most essential aspect of the process of initiation (noticed, I didn't say intiation ceremony). One important aspect of initiation is the initiation ceremony, but that is one thing that is outside the scope of the Prominent Link book. The GBC-ritvik debate focuses primarily on the formal aspect of the intiation process (an important aspect). But, the PL does not talk about that aspect, it's main focus is (almost entirely) on the essential aspect of the initiation process (noticed I didn't say the formal initiation ceremony), which is the delivery of transcendental knowledge. According to the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, the most important aspect of the initiation process is the transmission of transcendental knowledge. Since Srila Prabhupada is the prime deliverer of transcendental knowledge, he is the main guru. No one should eclipsed his greatness. He is the primary guru for everyone in ISKCON. The PL book is making this very important point. Now, some might say that the most important deliverer of transcendental knowledge is not Srila Prabhupada, fine, then, you are entitled to your opinion. But, for many, their main divya-jñana comes from Srila Prabhupada. So, based on the transmission of transcendental knowledge, Srila Prabhupada is the direct, current, and prominent link to the parampara (link in the sense that he links us to the parampara via divya-jñana). Still, no one is saying that Srila Prabhupada is the only link (only the ritviks say that) or that the link stops with Srila Prabhupada. He is the main link, that is all. He is the main link because he is the Vaisnava who directly gives transcendental knowledge more than any other devotee. So, prabhu Yasodanandana, how can you say that this is "diviant", "ritvik" and "concotion?" It all comes from Srila Prabhupada's teachings. Now, how is all of this have to do with "officiating acaryas." Nothing, really. Still, since I am not a "ritvik" phobic (like most devotees), I cannot deny Srila Prabhupada's clear response to Satvarupa Maharaja when he (Satvarupa Maharaja) asked a clear, open-ended, non-leading question to Srila Prabhupada about how initiations were to be conducted after his physical departure. Srila Prabhupada responded that he would appoint some of his followers to act as Officiating Acaryas. Now Srila Prabhupada's response was very clear. I don't think those in the Toronto meeting with Bhakti Caru Maharaja and and Bhakti Marga Swami were ritviks (at least most of them weren't-I know that Locanananda prabhu is not a ritvik). These devotees are simply non ritvik-phobics. Now, what does all that mean, I don't really know, I am not well verse in this "initiation ceremony" debate, I cannot make any further comment. All I know is what Srila Prabhupada said concerning how initiations were to be conducted after his departure. Since this is a "hot" topic, most likely, there has to be some kind of agreement (probably adjustments, I don't know). The Prominent Link book has nothing to do with the GBC-rivik debate. I sometimes feel that that debate can and will continue forever. That is why, I have no interest in talking about it. Better to talk about the Prominent Link conceptswhich has nothing to do with that ugly debate.

Excerpt from Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link by Dhira Govinda prabhu, page 124 An assumption of the Prominent Link, and it could be questioned, and this would form the basis for an interesting discussion, is that Srila Prabhupada would use the words "direct link,primary link,prominent link," and "current link" to describe the relationships of the Vaisnavas listed consecutively at the end of the Introcuction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is. That is, Srila Prabhupada would describe Narottama dasa Thakur as the direct, primary, current, and prominent link to the disciplic succession for Visvanatha Cakravarti, who i s the direct, primary, current, and prominent link for Jagannatha dasa Babaji, etc. if someone asserts that, even though Srila Prabhupada lists those names successively in his list of the disciplic succession, he would not use terms such as "direct" and "current" to describe those relationships, then the usage of terminology in The Prominent Link is questioned. Natural issues to pursue would be the determination of who Srila Prabhupada would describe as the prominent , direct, current, and primary link to the parampara for Visvanatha Cakravarti, for Bhaktivinode Thakur, for Gaurakisore dasa Babaji, etc., if not the Vaisnava acarya listed in the BG Intro. I am making the assumption that Srila Prabhupada would describe the Vaisnava listed in the preceding number of that list as the direct, current, and prominent link to the parampara for the Vaisnava listed in the following number on the list. Based on that assumption I then ask "What is the criteria for appearing on this list?" We can understand through historical fact related to the personalities on that list that the criteria isn't the performance of a formal initiation ceremony, and it isn't even simultaneous physical existence on the same planet. So what is the criteria? The criterion, as best I can perceive, and I'm open to alternative suggestions, is that the Vaisnava in the precedding number is the main deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge to the Vaisnava in the following number. With that criterion understood as being the determiant of who is the direct and prominent link to the parampara, we can then assess Srila Prabhupada's position in relation to the members o fhis movement. For those members of his movement for whom he is the main deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge, Srila Prabhupada is the current and primary link to the parampara. (But Srila Prabhupada didn't perform the formal initiation ceremony for that person. But Srila Prabhupada isn't physically present on the planet Earth.) Neither of those attributes are criteria for determining who is the prominent and current link to the parampara, based on the rationale described above. You asked "Does one necessarily lead to the other?" It does, if the teterminological assumptions of The Prominent Link are accepted. If they're not accepted, then one would need to present alternative terminology as to who Srila Prabhupada would describe as "direct", "prominent", and "current" , if not the Vaisnava listed in the preceding numbers in the list at the end of the BG Intro. Or, one could try to refute the essay's asserted criteria for being listed in that list-namely, being the Vaisnava who gives the most direct transcendental knowledge. If there is some criteria that fit better than that one, then let's hear it and discuss it, and apply it to our current situation.

Excerpt from Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link by Dhira Govinda prabhu, page 124 An assumption of the Prominent Link, and it could be questioned, and this would form the basis for an interesting discussion, is that Srila Prabhupada would use the words "direct link,primary link,prominent link," and "current link" to describe the relationships of the Vaisnavas listed consecutively at the end of the Introcuction to Bhagavad-gita As It Is. That is, Srila Prabhupada would describe Narottama dasa Thakur as the direct, primary, current, and prominent link to the disciplic succession for Visvanatha Cakravarti, who i s the direct, primary, current, and prominent link for Jagannatha dasa Babaji, etc. if someone asserts that, even though Srila Prabhupada lists those names successively in his list of the disciplic succession, he would not use terms such as "direct" and "current" to describe those relationships, then the usage of terminology in The Prominent Link is questioned. Natural issues to pursue would be the determination of who Srila Prabhupada would describe as the prominent , direct, current, and primary link to the parampara for Visvanatha Cakravarti, for Bhaktivinode Thakur, for Gaurakisore dasa Babaji, etc., if not the Vaisnava acarya listed in the BG Intro. I am making the assumption that Srila Prabhupada would describe the Vaisnava listed in the preceding number of that list as the direct, current, and prominent link to the parampara for the Vaisnava listed in the following number on the list. Based on that assumption I then ask "What is the criteria for appearing on this list?" We can understand through historical fact related to the personalities on that list that the criteria isn't the performance of a formal initiation ceremony, and it isn't even simultaneous physical existence on the same planet. So what is the criteria? The criterion, as best I can perceive, and I'm open to alternative suggestions, is that the Vaisnava in the precedding number is the main deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge to the Vaisnava in the following number. With that criterion understood as being the determiant of who is the direct and prominent link to the parampara, we can then assess Srila Prabhupada's position in relation to the members o fhis movement. For those members of his movement for whom he is the main deliverer of direct transcendental knowledge, Srila Prabhupada is the current and primary link to the parampara. (But Srila Prabhupada didn't perform the formal initiation ceremony for that person. But Srila Prabhupada isn't physically present on the planet Earth.) Neither of those attributes are criteria for determining who is the prominent and current link to the parampara, based on the rationale described above. You asked "Does one necessarily lead to the other?" It does, if the teterminological assumptions of The Prominent Link are accepted. If they're not accepted, then one would need to present alternative terminology as to who Srila Prabhupada would describe as "direct", "prominent", and "current" , if not the Vaisnava listed in the preceding numbers in the list at the end of the BG Intro. Or, one could try to refute the essay's asserted criteria for being listed in that list-namely, being the Vaisnava who gives the most direct transcendental knowledge. If there is some criteria that fit better than that one, then let's hear it and discuss it, and apply it to our current situation.

You said: "Nevertheless, some grand disciples would prefer to make things more simple and just have Srila Prabhupada's picture in their altars and offer him their bhoga and their pranam mantras and such worship him alone." in my opinion all the debate started from this phrase written by you, that, for me, sounds "ritvik" and deviant even if it seems so sweet. Prabhu, I am always suspicious of people who throw negative labels at someone. Can't two people talk to each other in a civilized manner without one trying to scratch the other's eyes? When you say that my words sound "ritvik" and deviant, I honestly do not know what you mean. Your statement certainly does not enhance communication. The only thing that I get out of your statement is that you are jeering at what I say. Now, I don't think that is too nice! I am not an expert at "ritvik" philosophy, in fact, I know very little about it. But from my understanding, the ritviks think that the only initiating guru is Srila Prabhupada. They also believe that all gurus that initiate are performing the initiation ceremony on behalf of Srila Prabhupada. How can this philosophy be compared to what I am saying, which by the way comes from the Prominent Link book. What I am saying is that some initiating gurus who do initiate on their own behalf and who are the diksa gurus for their disciples, out of humility they should defer the worship that they rightly deserve for themselves to Srila Prabhupada. Now some gurus might not want to defer their worship to anyone else, and that is OK too. How can this be called "ritvik philosophy"? Please, ask any ritvik if they agree with your assertion. As far as your assertion that what I am saying is "deviant." You have a right to your opinion, it is deviant for you and I don't argue with it. But, for many devotees it is not deviant. Why do I say this? Because it is not deviant to say that Srila Prabhupada is qualified to be worship as the prime deliverer of divya-jñana. He is the main spiritual guide and the guru from whom many are directly receiving most of their transcendental knowledge regardless of whom gave them initiation; therefore, he is the primary link. Yes, he is the main guru because transmission of transcendental knowledge is the essence of being a guru. Srila Prabhupada by being the prime deliverer of transcendental knowledge is everyone's main guru. If someone says that Srila Prabhupada is not their main guru because he is not giving the main transcendental knowledge, that it OK too. Just as it is OK to say that Srila Prabhupada is the main guru for those who are receiving the main transcendental knowledge from him. Both are OK and both should be accepted in his movement. So, the Prominent Link is not saying that all devotees should worhip Srila Prabhupada only. What is saying is that granddisciples are direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada and they are also disciples of the disciples of Srila Prabhupada. All of our initiating gurus could be pure devotees, still it does not change the fact that granddisciples are also direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada and that if some choose to worship him exclusively, that should be accepted also. Please do not get hang up with the worship issue. You are saying that to worship Srila Prabhupada instead of your initiating guru is deviant. But that is not so, there are many examples in the parampara where a Vaisnava who did not conduct the initiation ceremony is the main guru and the main link to the disciplic succession. For example, Srila Vyasadeva did not conduct the initiation ceremony for Srila Madhvacarya; Srila Narottama dasa Thakura did not perform an initiation ceremony for Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura; Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji did not formally initiate Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura; Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura did not officially initiate Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, and so on and so forth. Are you calling all of these exalted Vaisnavas deviant because they did not worship their initiating gurus as their main gurus? Not to formally worship someone doesn't mean that we think he is not pure or qualified. Neither does it mean that we are disrespectful of him. Again, no one is saying that all initiating gurus should not be worshipped. And no one is saying that the parampara ends with Srila Prabhupada. All that we are saying is that Srila Prabhupada is the main giver of transcendental knowledge for all members of his movement. He is the primary guru. He is qualified to be the sole receiver of worship if and only if the initiating guru defers his own worship to Srila Prabhupada. As we saw in the example of the exalted personalities above, an initiating guru is not always the point of your absolute surrender. I don't have Dhira Govinda prabhu's sharp mind and so I can understand why my words can be easily misunderstood. I am just explaining things to the best of my capacity. I am really a very simple person. Maybe this excerpt from the Prominet Link might help (but it is best to read the book to really understand it): I will post this in my next post because I'll run out of room.

You said: "Nevertheless, some grand disciples would prefer to make things more simple and just have Srila Prabhupada's picture in their altars and offer him their bhoga and their pranam mantras and such worship him alone." in my opinion all the debate started from this phrase written by you, that, for me, sounds "ritvik" and deviant even if it seems so sweet. Prabhu, I am always suspicious of people who throw negative labels at someone. Can't two people talk to each other in a civilized manner without one trying to scratch the other's eyes? When you say that my words sound "ritvik" and deviant, I honestly do not know what you mean. Your statement certainly does not enhance communication. The only thing that I get out of your statement is that you are jeering at what I say. Now, I don't think that is too nice! I am not an expert at "ritvik" philosophy, in fact, I know very little about it. But from my understanding, the ritviks think that the only initiating guru is Srila Prabhupada. They also believe that all gurus that initiate are performing the initiation ceremony on behalf of Srila Prabhupada. How can this philosophy be compared to what I am saying, which by the way comes from the Prominent Link book. What I am saying is that some initiating gurus who do initiate on their own behalf and who are the diksa gurus for their disciples, out of humility they should defer the worship that they rightly deserve for themselves to Srila Prabhupada. Now some gurus might not want to defer their worship to anyone else, and that is OK too. How can this be called "ritvik philosophy"? Please, ask any ritvik if they agree with your assertion. As far as your assertion that what I am saying is "deviant." You have a right to your opinion, it is deviant for you and I don't argue with it. But, for many devotees it is not deviant. Why do I say this? Because it is not deviant to say that Srila Prabhupada is qualified to be worship as the prime deliverer of divya-jñana. He is the main spiritual guide and the guru from whom many are directly receiving most of their transcendental knowledge regardless of whom gave them initiation; therefore, he is the primary link. Yes, he is the main guru because transmission of transcendental knowledge is the essence of being a guru. Srila Prabhupada by being the prime deliverer of transcendental knowledge is everyone's main guru. If someone says that Srila Prabhupada is not their main guru because he is not giving the main transcendental knowledge, that it OK too. Just as it is OK to say that Srila Prabhupada is the main guru for those who are receiving the main transcendental knowledge from him. Both are OK and both should be accepted in his movement. So, the Prominent Link is not saying that all devotees should worhip Srila Prabhupada only. What is saying is that granddisciples are direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada and they are also disciples of the disciples of Srila Prabhupada. All of our initiating gurus could be pure devotees, still it does not change the fact that granddisciples are also direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada and that if some choose to worship him exclusively, that should be accepted also. Please do not get hang up with the worship issue. You are saying that to worship Srila Prabhupada instead of your initiating guru is deviant. But that is not so, there are many examples in the parampara where a Vaisnava who did not conduct the initiation ceremony is the main guru and the main link to the disciplic succession. For example, Srila Vyasadeva did not conduct the initiation ceremony for Srila Madhvacarya; Srila Narottama dasa Thakura did not perform an initiation ceremony for Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura; Srila Jagannatha dasa Babaji did not formally initiate Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura; Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura did not officially initiate Srila Gaurakisora dasa Babaji, and so on and so forth. Are you calling all of these exalted Vaisnavas deviant because they did not worship their initiating gurus as their main gurus? Not to formally worship someone doesn't mean that we think he is not pure or qualified. Neither does it mean that we are disrespectful of him. Again, no one is saying that all initiating gurus should not be worshipped. And no one is saying that the parampara ends with Srila Prabhupada. All that we are saying is that Srila Prabhupada is the main giver of transcendental knowledge for all members of his movement. He is the primary guru. He is qualified to be the sole receiver of worship if and only if the initiating guru defers his own worship to Srila Prabhupada. As we saw in the example of the exalted personalities above, an initiating guru is not always the point of your absolute surrender. I don't have Dhira Govinda prabhu's sharp mind and so I can understand why my words can be easily misunderstood. I am just explaining things to the best of my capacity. I am really a very simple person. Maybe this excerpt from the Prominet Link might help (but it is best to read the book to really understand it): I will post this in my next post because I'll run out of room.

Dear Yasodananda prabhu, You have misunderstood my post and you have certainly misunderstood the book "Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link." No one is saying that the initiating gurus are not qualified or that they are not pure. It has nothing to do with their pureness or qualification. No one is saying that the initiating gurus cannot link us to the parampara. And no one is saying that the initiating guru cannot bring one to Krsna. As an intelligent person, you do realize that "qualified, pure and to bring one to Krsna" is a subjective topic. How can anyone say that our gurus are not qualified, pure or that they cannot bring one to Krsna! The Prominent Link is certainly not saying that. So, please stop accusing it of something that is not saying! You say: ...."so the message of bhaktisiddhanta is sweet, interpretated by srila prabhupada is sweeter, applied in my time, place and circumstance by my spiritual master is sweetest!!" Prabhu, who is arguing with that? You say:....."disciplic succession is not a series of layers each one adding blur or fog to the vision of krsna and previous acharyas." Prabhu, disciplic succession is not a series of bodies. There are many gurus in the disciplic succession that were not initiating spiritual masters. So, you are right, disciplic succession is NOT a material conception. Prabhu, this statement does not make sense to me: "yes but we have to learn, that we are in the spiritual realm, it is not like in our world, if i put another ring (the guru) in the chain between me and prabhupada, the connection becames closer because now i am linked in the right way, before i was studying, training, preparing to the real commitment!!" If you are saying that the Prominent Link does not consider the initiation ceremony as a real commitment, then you are misinterpreting it's message. What the Prominent Link is saying is that we have a real and direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada by reading his books and hearing his tapes. That real and direct connection (receving divya-jñana) with Srila Prabhupada does not change at the time of the initiation ceremony. That relationship with Srila Prabhupada is still there, we are still getting our primary divya-jñana from him. So, that connection does not become indirect at the moment of the initiation ceremony. It is still direct before and after the initiation ceremony. Prabhu, can you explain this statement: "reading also the words of dhira govinda prabhu, i humby think that we have forgotten that "direct" has an opposite meaning and effect in the spiritual world than in the material world." Prabhu, who is saying that we do not need a physically present initiating guru to give us slaps in the face? Prabhu, who is saying that we do not want a physically present guru to instruct us. Prabhu, who is arguing with your conclusions when you say: "my conclusion: we are not pure, we do not live in the spiritual world, prabhupada is in the spiritual world, we need a pure person to transfer the slaps from the lotus hands of prabhupada to our materialist face." I am grateful that you took the time to respond to my post. But, frankly I find it offensive that you are accusing the Prominent Link book of saying things that it does not say. Give me an honest answer, prabhu, did you even bothered to read the Prominent Link book. It looks as though you haven't. Then, how can you argue against something that you have no knowledge of? What the Prominent Link is saying is that the most relevant connection to the parampara comes through the reception of transcendental knowledge and that Srila Prabhupada is therefore fulfilling that role by virtue of being the primary giver of transcendental knowledge. That the most essential aspect of the process of initiation is the transmission of transcendental knowledge. That Srila Prabhupada is the main source, and even the main direct source, of transcendental knowledge, for many, perhaps most, members of his movement. That one is connected to the parampara through transcendental knowledge. Anyone who gives one transcendental knowledge is connecting us to the parampara. That Srila Prabhupada is the main giver of transcendental knowledge. That the purpose of the formal initiation ceremony is an acknowledgement of the initiate's connection to the parampara. The role of the initiating spiritual master in the ceremony is to encourage and help the devotee to strengthen that connection. So, as you can see, Yasodanandana prabhu, the Prominent Link does not talk about gurus not being pure or qualified or that we do not need to take initiation, or that we do not need an initiating spiritual master or anything of the like. If you want to discuss the Prominent Link then let's discuss what it is really saying (what I listed above). Let's discuss what the Prominent Link is really saying, not what others (or the GBC) are saying what it says, or what you think it is saying. Let's discuss the real content of the Prominent Link.

Dear Yasodananda prabhu, You have misunderstood my post and you have certainly misunderstood the book "Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link." No one is saying that the initiating gurus are not qualified or that they are not pure. It has nothing to do with their pureness or qualification. No one is saying that the initiating gurus cannot link us to the parampara. And no one is saying that the initiating guru cannot bring one to Krsna. As an intelligent person, you do realize that "qualified, pure and to bring one to Krsna" is a subjective topic. How can anyone say that our gurus are not qualified, pure or that they cannot bring one to Krsna! The Prominent Link is certainly not saying that. So, please stop accusing it of something that is not saying! You say: ...."so the message of bhaktisiddhanta is sweet, interpretated by srila prabhupada is sweeter, applied in my time, place and circumstance by my spiritual master is sweetest!!" Prabhu, who is arguing with that? You say:....."disciplic succession is not a series of layers each one adding blur or fog to the vision of krsna and previous acharyas." Prabhu, disciplic succession is not a series of bodies. There are many gurus in the disciplic succession that were not initiating spiritual masters. So, you are right, disciplic succession is NOT a material conception. Prabhu, this statement does not make sense to me: "yes but we have to learn, that we are in the spiritual realm, it is not like in our world, if i put another ring (the guru) in the chain between me and prabhupada, the connection becames closer because now i am linked in the right way, before i was studying, training, preparing to the real commitment!!" If you are saying that the Prominent Link does not consider the initiation ceremony as a real commitment, then you are misinterpreting it's message. What the Prominent Link is saying is that we have a real and direct relationship with Srila Prabhupada by reading his books and hearing his tapes. That real and direct connection (receving divya-jñana) with Srila Prabhupada does not change at the time of the initiation ceremony. That relationship with Srila Prabhupada is still there, we are still getting our primary divya-jñana from him. So, that connection does not become indirect at the moment of the initiation ceremony. It is still direct before and after the initiation ceremony. Prabhu, can you explain this statement: "reading also the words of dhira govinda prabhu, i humby think that we have forgotten that "direct" has an opposite meaning and effect in the spiritual world than in the material world." Prabhu, who is saying that we do not need a physically present initiating guru to give us slaps in the face? Prabhu, who is saying that we do not want a physically present guru to instruct us. Prabhu, who is arguing with your conclusions when you say: "my conclusion: we are not pure, we do not live in the spiritual world, prabhupada is in the spiritual world, we need a pure person to transfer the slaps from the lotus hands of prabhupada to our materialist face." I am grateful that you took the time to respond to my post. But, frankly I find it offensive that you are accusing the Prominent Link book of saying things that it does not say. Give me an honest answer, prabhu, did you even bothered to read the Prominent Link book. It looks as though you haven't. Then, how can you argue against something that you have no knowledge of? What the Prominent Link is saying is that the most relevant connection to the parampara comes through the reception of transcendental knowledge and that Srila Prabhupada is therefore fulfilling that role by virtue of being the primary giver of transcendental knowledge. That the most essential aspect of the process of initiation is the transmission of transcendental knowledge. That Srila Prabhupada is the main source, and even the main direct source, of transcendental knowledge, for many, perhaps most, members of his movement. That one is connected to the parampara through transcendental knowledge. Anyone who gives one transcendental knowledge is connecting us to the parampara. That Srila Prabhupada is the main giver of transcendental knowledge. That the purpose of the formal initiation ceremony is an acknowledgement of the initiate's connection to the parampara. The role of the initiating spiritual master in the ceremony is to encourage and help the devotee to strengthen that connection. So, as you can see, Yasodanandana prabhu, the Prominent Link does not talk about gurus not being pure or qualified or that we do not need to take initiation, or that we do not need an initiating spiritual master or anything of the like. If you want to discuss the Prominent Link then let's discuss what it is really saying (what I listed above). Let's discuss what the Prominent Link is really saying, not what others (or the GBC) are saying what it says, or what you think it is saying. Let's discuss the real content of the Prominent Link.

Dear Guest, I have been away for more than a week, but I see that you have responded my plea to make yourself more clear. Thank you so much, prabhu. You said: master (guru) is a person who accepts questions, gives answers and when there's the need, chasizes... to recognise a master we have to learn what a master is from books and tradition book (shastra) is where we can read general principles but it can be somewhat difficult to apply them in time, place and circumstance... so we need a master to do this tradition (sadhu) supports the right interpretation of the scriptures and gives the example of what a master has to be one or two only is not enough I agree with you, prabhu, we must not step out of the knowledge given by guru, shastra and sadhu. That is why the Prominent Link never says that one must not worship his initiating guru. If a granddisciple worships Srila Prabhupada instead of his own guru, it is not because the guru is not qualified. It has nothing to do with qualification. And of course it is not because he shouldn't worship his initiating guru. If a granddisciple chooses to worship Srila Prabhupada only it is because his initiating guru, out of humility directs his disciple to worship Srila Prabhupada instead. It is done for the sake of the movement. For an initiating guru to deferred his worship to Srila Prabhupada is not against guru, shastra and sadhu. It has nothing to do with not having faith in the initiating guru or doubting his qualifications. Guest prabhu, no one said that the initiating spiritual master does not link his disciple to the parampara. Yes, there should be initiating gurus, who said there shouldn't? Initiating spiritual masters should keep on asking questions, giving answers and chastising us. Who says they shouldn't? Spiritual masters should keep explaining books to us. Who says they shouldn't? Where in the world is the Prominent Link saying that there is no need for a physically present initiating spiritual master? So, the Prominent Link is not going against tradition. All that is saying is what Srila Prabhupada taught us and told us many times. That is, that the most essential aspect of the process of initiation is the transmission of transcendental knowledge. Srila Prabhupada is the main source, the main direct source of transcendental knowledge. When one comes to the movement, he is requested to meditate on Srila Prabhupada as his guru. The role of the initiating spiritual master is to strengthen the connection that one has with Srila Prabhupada. It is not that when one comes to the movement, he is meditating on Srila Prabhupada as his guru and then at the moment of initiation, he no longer feels that connection with Srila Prabhupada. All of the sudden, at the moment of initiation he looses that direct connection with Srila Prabhupada and then becomes connected to him only indirectly. No, that connection with Srila Prabhupada is still there at the moment of initiation. It is a connection of instructor and student, but it is still there, it does not stop being direct and becomes indirect. That direct connection is there before the initiation and still there after the initiation. It is a trasncendental connection. Transcendental in the sense of reception of diyva-jaña. Perhaps Dhira Govinda prabhu's writings in the Prominent Link makes more sense than mine when he says ( I am copying from the book exactly as it is written): "Can someone be called 'Srila Prabhupada's disciple if he didn't receive formal initiation from Srila Prabhupada?' The GBC response to this, based on its policy that Srila Prabhupada is the preeminent siksa guru for every member of the institution (GBC resolutions, 1999), would seem to be "yes". As far as I understand GBC position statements, the GBC would qualify this "yes" by stating that everyone is Srila Prabhupada's siksa disciple, but not his diksa disciple. Still, the GBC would agree that all members are meant to be Srila Prabhupupada's direct disciple, in some sense, (a siksa sense), of the term. In the above-mentioned section of PL, the essay presents a "this and that" perspective, rather than a "this or that" perspective, regarding this issue of terminlogy. We suggest that such a perspective as described in PL can synthesize diverse views in the movement and thus contribute towards harmonious understanding amongst Srila Prabhupada's followers. If we focus on delivery of transcendental knowledge from guru to disciple, then all members of the movement may be considered direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada, and if we focus on the formal initiation ceremony, then perhaps the terminology "disciple of the disciple" is applicable.

Dear Guest, I have been away for more than a week, but I see that you have responded my plea to make yourself more clear. Thank you so much, prabhu. You said: master (guru) is a person who accepts questions, gives answers and when there's the need, chasizes... to recognise a master we have to learn what a master is from books and tradition book (shastra) is where we can read general principles but it can be somewhat difficult to apply them in time, place and circumstance... so we need a master to do this tradition (sadhu) supports the right interpretation of the scriptures and gives the example of what a master has to be one or two only is not enough I agree with you, prabhu, we must not step out of the knowledge given by guru, shastra and sadhu. That is why the Prominent Link never says that one must not worship his initiating guru. If a granddisciple worships Srila Prabhupada instead of his own guru, it is not because the guru is not qualified. It has nothing to do with qualification. And of course it is not because he shouldn't worship his initiating guru. If a granddisciple chooses to worship Srila Prabhupada only it is because his initiating guru, out of humility directs his disciple to worship Srila Prabhupada instead. It is done for the sake of the movement. For an initiating guru to deferred his worship to Srila Prabhupada is not against guru, shastra and sadhu. It has nothing to do with not having faith in the initiating guru or doubting his qualifications. Guest prabhu, no one said that the initiating spiritual master does not link his disciple to the parampara. Yes, there should be initiating gurus, who said there shouldn't? Initiating spiritual masters should keep on asking questions, giving answers and chastising us. Who says they shouldn't? Spiritual masters should keep explaining books to us. Who says they shouldn't? Where in the world is the Prominent Link saying that there is no need for a physically present initiating spiritual master? So, the Prominent Link is not going against tradition. All that is saying is what Srila Prabhupada taught us and told us many times. That is, that the most essential aspect of the process of initiation is the transmission of transcendental knowledge. Srila Prabhupada is the main source, the main direct source of transcendental knowledge. When one comes to the movement, he is requested to meditate on Srila Prabhupada as his guru. The role of the initiating spiritual master is to strengthen the connection that one has with Srila Prabhupada. It is not that when one comes to the movement, he is meditating on Srila Prabhupada as his guru and then at the moment of initiation, he no longer feels that connection with Srila Prabhupada. All of the sudden, at the moment of initiation he looses that direct connection with Srila Prabhupada and then becomes connected to him only indirectly. No, that connection with Srila Prabhupada is still there at the moment of initiation. It is a connection of instructor and student, but it is still there, it does not stop being direct and becomes indirect. That direct connection is there before the initiation and still there after the initiation. It is a trasncendental connection. Transcendental in the sense of reception of diyva-jaña. Perhaps Dhira Govinda prabhu's writings in the Prominent Link makes more sense than mine when he says ( I am copying from the book exactly as it is written): "Can someone be called 'Srila Prabhupada's disciple if he didn't receive formal initiation from Srila Prabhupada?' The GBC response to this, based on its policy that Srila Prabhupada is the preeminent siksa guru for every member of the institution (GBC resolutions, 1999), would seem to be "yes". As far as I understand GBC position statements, the GBC would qualify this "yes" by stating that everyone is Srila Prabhupada's siksa disciple, but not his diksa disciple. Still, the GBC would agree that all members are meant to be Srila Prabhupupada's direct disciple, in some sense, (a siksa sense), of the term. In the above-mentioned section of PL, the essay presents a "this and that" perspective, rather than a "this or that" perspective, regarding this issue of terminlogy. We suggest that such a perspective as described in PL can synthesize diverse views in the movement and thus contribute towards harmonious understanding amongst Srila Prabhupada's followers. If we focus on delivery of transcendental knowledge from guru to disciple, then all members of the movement may be considered direct disciples of Srila Prabhupada, and if we focus on the formal initiation ceremony, then perhaps the terminology "disciple of the disciple" is applicable.

Dear guest, Unfortunately I am going away for a few days and won't be able to follow this topic. But, with all due respects, I cannot make heads or tails of your post. Can you repeat your main points for simple people like myself (and others that are not so simple)? And please, try to stay on topic (I believe you did that, but I am not so sure).

Dear guest, Unfortunately I am going away for a few days and won't be able to follow this topic. But, with all due respects, I cannot make heads or tails of your post. Can you repeat your main points for simple people like myself (and others that are not so simple)? And please, try to stay on topic (I believe you did that, but I am not so sure).

Sorry, it was me who wrote the "No, not jumping over." I forgot to sign in.