Initiation (?)

[Guest guest]

>

> As it is now, it is considered a great offence to question someone's

> qualification as a guru. But what if people can see that a person is not

> actually qualified? Must we always wait until the guy actually falls

> before we discuss this? How many percent of all the gurus in ISKCON have

> fallen down? Is it 50 %? More? Is this not something to be concerned

> about?

 

I also agree with "general opinion" that it is an offence to

question someone's qualification as a guru -- from the side of

someone who is uncalled for it, whose business is not of that

kind.

 

As far as your question "Must we always wait until the guy

actually falls before we discuss this?", well, you can't

have really such clear cut as you are implying it now. Just

think for a while in which moment you have introduced the

expression "the guy" for your ex-guru. Was it before of

after his fall? How many times you were ready to discuss and

question his qualifications as a guru prior to his fall?

 

Otherwise, I don't think it's 50%. Perhaps much less.

 

 

One thing more. Think about that Harikesa Maharaja (former)

was named by Srila Prabhupada, along with 10 others, to carry

on with initiating disciples after Prabhupada' soon departure.

Thus your question "Was he ever bona fide" on that way

may just well turn into calling in question Prabhupada's

competency. Was Prabhupada in illusion about wether all

those "elevens" were uttama-adhikaris, or did he make a

deliberate blunder and violated sastric injunctions by

authorizing non-uttama adhikaris into the position of

initiating gurus in the line of Guru Parampara? Or

something else.

 

 

 

 

ys mnd