Initiation (?)

[Guest guest]

On 02 May 1999, Jatukarnya das wrote:

 

>

> People can go around telling me that I am still initiated and connected to

the parampara through bona fide diksa initiation, since my spiritual master

was in "good standing" when he initiated me. That sounds to me like nonsense.

It is unheard of in the history of our parampara, a bona fide guru cannot fall

down, which means that my spiritual master was never in "good standing" as a

guru. That means that my initiation is not valid, the diksa connection to the

parampara is not there. If someone says I am wrong, I would like to see quotes

from sastra proving the opposite.

>

>

 

Didn't Lord Caitanya take sanyass from a guru outside the Vaisnava tradition?

That is something that might suggest questionable standing from the devotional

perspective. It would also seem to suggest that it is a dynamic siksa

relationship that is the most essential link in a guru/disciple relationship.

Of course, entering sanyass is not the same as taking Harinama intitiation.

 

I would guess that for ISKCON, to say someone previously offering diksa was at

the time behaving like a respectable Vaisnava would at least not make a

mockery of the tradition. No one is pretending that difficult and unfortuante

situations are desirable.

 

Further, I would suggest it niave to consider such things never happened

previously, they just didn't get blasted all over VNN. For instance, there are

historical cases reported in the Gaudiya Math of sanyassi and even 'appointed

acaryas' experiencing difficulties. When one does small things, his mistakes

often go unnoticed. In comparison, Srila Prabhupada set up ISKCON as an

attempt to organize something on an international scale.

 

Again, it appears the actual catalyst of the guru/disciple relationship is the

relationship, not the formality. If one feels one is re-entering a

relationship where one feels intimately connected to the disciplic succession,

I don't believe it is against ISKCON's policy for one to have the desire to

formalize such things within our standard tradition. It is just that there

should be a feeling of introspectiveness and gravity about such affairs, not

rushing from one situation to the next in a mood of desperation.

 

It seems to me that relationship should come before the formality. Also, it

does not appear that one necessarily needs to formalize a siksa relationship

with diksa. Thus one can have a siksa relationship with someone, oh, as a

hypothetical example, lets say someone like Srila Prabhupada, without needing

to become his 'direct disciple' after his physical departure.

 

Surely Krsna will protect His devotees even if they find themselves in awkward

situations. After all, that seems to be the story line presented to us in such

literatures as the Mahabharata, and so on, and on, and on.

 

ys,

 

Sthita-dhi