Bhakta Omer

Not only the vast majority. I do believe that it's safe to say that all of us think that diksa is initiation and initiation is diksa. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I was merely referring to the pre diksa state, when he should still receive instruction even without initiation and that state is called Shiksa. I wasn't suggesting in any way that siksa is an initiation or that diksa can be given from the non-physically present.

Well, there is no harm of being friends. The thing is, should you torture yourself that way? It's you're call, I guess.

Actually, the acceptance of the non-physically present as a guru is quite possible in our tradition. We accept the acharyas of the past and their instructions, we go on a pilgrimage to their Samadhi and worship them. We accept them as shiksha guru indeed. It is also acceptable in some vaishnava sampradayas to accept Lord Shiva as a guru. But indeed, a physically present diksha guru is very important. Important, but hard to find… So until that day, the acceptance of past acharyas as our shiksha guru, by studying their words and following their instruction, is very important.

Well, of course I lack the knowledge. That's why I'm asking question Prabhu. Isn't it? If you claim the sources you've pointed out does show indeed dealt with the arguments shown here, I suppose we should give them a close look. On the other hand: If the pro-ritvik propagators here indeed gave these sources a closer look, and if these sources do have an indisputable answer to some very irrelevant questions, I still don't understand why the best argument I've heard so far is that I should just "accept the ripe mango handed to me" no question ask… Anyway, from what I read in Prabhupadas books, he indeed talks about a system of guru-parampara, a chain of guru-disciple system beginning in the lord himself. In that chain, Prabhupada is the disciple of his guru, just like to his disciples Prabhupda is the guru. "a disciple of my disciple". This chain, as I understand, goes back to vedic time and THAT is status quo. Unless, of course, there is an instruction where Prabhupada literally states: "The parampara ends with me!". I expect to find such a quote in the sources offered here. Otherwise, this just makes Prabhupadas instructions for him as the one diksa guru an instruction for the time of his physical presence and the ritvik system, introduced by him, as an instruction for the times where his physical condition wouldn't allow him to travel. BUT! If all is correct, and Prabhupada indeed instructed that the parampara ends with him, we now have to deal with a bigger problem: did Prabhupada diverted from the Gaudia-Vaishnava tradition and from Vedic tradition…

While the Mayavadi may say: "This could be the problem, too much association with Vaishnavas lead to not even understand when Shankara / Swami Vivekananda / Maharishi / Osho says, here is a nice ripe mango, taste it!" Should I just flip a coin or what? As for the claims raised by Prahlanananda Swami: A nice Prabhu by the name of Gaurasundar das published an article on chakra.org which may contain a non ritvik solution. Titled: "Many are Qualified to Initiate". But I'm afraid the system won't allow me to give you the link until I've reached 15 posts, so you'll have to find it yourself… Sorry.

I've just happened to read that article on iskcon.com yesterday. It's very educating!

Well, friend, if by "monk" you mean a brahmachari, then you should know that he most likely won't be a monk for the rest of his life. He will get married eventually. But he probably won't marry someone who is not a devotee herself. YET! Becoming a devotee just because you want to be with someone is being a devotee for the wrong reasons. If you do that, well, you might get into one big mess eventually. So what you should do, I think, is perhaps keep distance. Stay friends, nothing more, but don’t torture yourself by getting to close, which might eventually, as others said, will "disturb" him.

You have no idea how many times I've heard that argument from neo-hinduist mayavadis. "Yes, I know it's not consistent with the Vedas or with logic, but I feel it in my heart that it's true!" Therefore: The parampara should not stop for the sake of ritvik initiation. That is my conclusion. I can't really see any different one yet. Sorry.

For initiation you need a guru. For a guru you need to pray to god to send you a guru. So what you should do is continue practice your sadhana and chanting and until the lord decide you are ready to send you a guru, accept parmatma, the God within, as your guru. Until you'll find you're diksa guru, it's ok to consider Srila Prabhupada, or any other acharya from the past, as you're siksa guru and follow their instructions.

Well, my comment will be that this specific guru is clearly not a true one. But it doesn't mean that all the gurus in the world are not true as well. It's a well known fact that lot's of Gaurakishora das Babaji's disciples were cheaters. Does this make Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati a cheater? So this makes your question completely irrelevant. And another thing that makes it irrelevant is that it still does not answer the question why Prabhupada? Why can't Rupa goswami or Mahaprabhu be my non physically present guru, in case of lack of a present one to be found? I still am not convinced that the ritvik system was meant by Prabhupada to be used after his disappearance. As far as I can see it is clear that the ritviks were meant to give initiations in Prabhupadas name in times when he couldn't have been present due to his physical condition. I still don’t see here an instruction for stopping the ancient guru-parampara which we followed all through history. BUT! If you can prove to me that Prabhupada DID instructed such a diversion from tradition, then we have a bigger problem on our hands, which is proving that Prabhupada did not diverse from the gaudia-vaishnava tradition. Or in other word's: To prove that Srila Prabhupada WAS RIGHT!

I still don't really understand why Prabhubada is my link and not Rupa Goswami or Lord Chaitanya. Prabhupada passed away before I was born. I can't see how he is more currant for me then Rupa Goswami. Why can't Rupa Goswami or Lord Chaitanya, or any other acharya in our line, be my non physically present diksa guru?

There is one thing about the ritvic theory I don't understand: If we can be initiated by a non-physically present guru, then why Srila Prabhupada? Why not Bhaktisidhanta Sarasvati or Rupa Goswami or even Lord Chaitanya himself? Why does the guru-parampara stops at Prabhupada after all these years?