Let's learn from history

[Guest guest]

> sometimes devotees approaching [Narayan Maharaja] for initiation

>have not been straightforward to Maharaja and he re-initiates them without

>being properly informed.

 

The image of Narayan Maharaja hastily, with no deep personal interaction,

reinitiating ISKCON devotees during his dig-vijaya tours reminds me of the

initiation practices during the Zonal Acharya days of ISKCON in the 80's.

Do two wrongs make one right?

Hopefully it is not the case that many of those hasty re-initiates were

driven like sheep herds (cannon fodders?) by Narayan Maharaja's agents.

And perhaps at some point in time ISKCON temples and gurus will have to

start welcoming back disenchanted Narayan Maharaja initiates...

(Re. dig-vijaya tours, didn't Sankara-acarya also enjoy them, and even

write a book about them?)

 

This topic brings to mind, as well, the Muslims' practice of sprinkling

Hindus with water, to convert them, during their conquering raids in Early

Medieval India.

Hridayananda Maharaja has explained that, driven by false-ego, the Hindus

made the mistake of not welcoming back the disenchanted Muslim converts,

and that mistake clearly facilitated communalism and the eventual partition

of India (during which process more people got killed than during Hitler's

tyranny).

 

How did the Muslims get into India in a conquering, dig-vijaya, mood?

Mesmerized by the wealth of Early Medieval India, its world-wide prestige,

its spiritual power, its gorgeous temples, its unforgettable food...

 

Andre Wink, a scholar (and sympatizer) of Islam in India, said during a

history seminar in Madison that the Muslims prepared themselves for a whole

century in order to invade India. First of all with determination -- they

firmly set their minds, one-pointedly, on taking possession of India. They

built up their military muscle, they visited India to check it out

individually and in small groups, they established small-scale commercial

operations within India, etc.

Why was India, a former world potency, so weak and conquerable in the Early

Medieval times? For one thing, it was plagued with petty kings, feudal

lords (sort of a political Zonal Acharyanism). And, of course, the

Yuga-avatara had not descended yet. Lord Caitanya had not yet told the

Indians: bharata-bhumite haila...

 

An article in the latest issue of the Journal of Vaisnava Studies (8.1,

1999, p. 59) begins by stating, "Controversies of all sorts abound in

Vaisnava as in other traditions." Derrida is then quoted saying that rather

than "religions" there are, for him, "tensions, heterogeneity, disruptive

volcanos..." And this verse spoken by Yuddhisthira Maharaja and found in

the Vana-parva of the MBh (not in the Critical Edition) is cited thereafter:

tarko 'pratisthah srutayo vibhinna

nasav munir yasya matam na bhinnam

dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam

mahajano yena gatah sa panthah

 

"Logical argumentation has not foundation. The scriptures are divided.

"He whose opinion is not different [from that of all other munis] is not an

intellectual.

"The truth of dharma is hidden in a cave (the heart; it's esoteric).

"The path is that by which great souls have gone."

 

your servant,

Kunti dd