Initiation (?)

[Guest guest]

> But my spiritual master left, and showed that he was not

> qualified of having disciples in our parampara (that does not mean that he

> is a useless guy, it just means that he is not an uttama adhikari, which

> one is supposed to be to initiate in our parampara).

 

Where does it say that only uttama adhikari is supposed to be

initiating in our parampara?

 

 

 

>

> 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.

 

 

Even if he was not in "good standing", it is not the formal initiation

that keeps one connected to the Parampara. So many initiated disciples

of Srila Prabhupada have disappeared, having their connection to

the Parampara broken. On the other hand, many initiated disciples from

the many ISCKON gurus that are not around anymore, are continuing

just fine with their spiritual practice anyway. You may also

find that some of your "initiated godbrothers" have been doing

excellently up to 20 years of devotional service after being formally

initiated by someone who is now gone. What do you think, what was

that connecting them to the Parampara all that time? Your reasoning

that without being initiated by an uttama-adhikari one is not

connected to the Parampara would imply that these have never been

really connected to the Parampara all these years, neither they

will ever be until they got an uttama adhikari to give them the

beads and the name.

 

The connection is being actually established and *kept* through

following siksa, the instructions. That is our Sampradaya line - the

siksa line. For example, you may even not heard for the initiating

guru of Bhaktivinodhe Thakura. He was a sukra-guru, a seminal preast.

 

 

> 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.

 

I just mentioned Bhaktivinodhe Thakura's initiating guru. From

the book "The Ray of Visnu", it appears that he never was "up" on

the first place. Hardly close to anything that could be categorized

as "uttama-adhikari".

 

 

 

> 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.

 

Well, in that case, if "diksa connection" is of that importance

for you, I suppose you may take "re-initiation" from somebody else

in ISCKON (or anywhere else, after all) that you evaluate to be an

uttama-adhikari, and expect from to never fall down.

 

 

 

As far as sastric quotes proving the opposite than what you have said,

the custom is rather to first support one's own statements with the

appropriate quotes and _then_ to ask from others for the opposite sastric

evidence. For example, if you say that only uttama-adhikari is expected

to be initiating in our Sampradaya, then why place the burden on others

to prove you wrong? Well... you are already wrong - by not supporting

your claim with the appropriate guru-sadhu-sastra evidence. Nobody

_has_ to do anything in that regard. Unless one is interested to

preach you, of course. But are you interested in being preached to

here, really?

 

 

>

> Anyone else who cares to contemplate on this issue? Maybe the ones who

> have commited no sins since initiation can throw the first rock? (Just

> joking. I would really like a discussion on this, if others are

> interested.)

 

Let's see your first "stone" (I mean, quote).

 

 

 

ys mnd