Initiation (?)

[Guest guest]

> > 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.

>

> Those 11 were asked to perform ritvik initiations on Prabhupadas behalf

> while he was present. He never instructed them (the 11) specificaly to

> take their own disciples.

 

The original 11 seem to be convinced that he did. And the GBC never said

that this was a wrong understanding by them. And that is why I am so careful

in addressing this issue. But I believe what you believe.

 

> Yes Srila Prabhupada did say that all his disciples should become guru,

> but he meant that they should be qualified also.

 

That is also my inderstanding.

 

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

> > may just well turn into calling in question Prabhupada's

> > competency.

>

> Not at all, because they were only instructed by him to carry on

> initiations on his behalf while he was present, so they were simply

> priests.

 

Thank you for speaking so straight-forward on this issue. You reflect my

thoughts excactly.

 

> Srila Prabhupada did definatly make at least one pure devotee, HH Gour

> Govinda Swami, and of course we have Jayananda prabhu, who knows who else

> their may be? If we are NOT REALLY LOOKING for pure help, but are just

> kind of toodling along in ISKCON enjoying the feasts, enjoying the

> kirtans, and not being really serious, then maybe Lord Krsna will not

> reveal to us the pure souls.

>

> It's right that it is not the etiquette for the disciple to question if

> his guru is qualified or not AFTER he has been initiated, but it is

> incumbent for the gurus themselves to admit where they are really at.

 

Yes.

 

>At

> least the guru should answer the bonafide questions of the disciple. If

> done with REAL humility, one can point out personaly to his guru if his

> guru appears to have deviated somewhat. This happened once with my

> gurumaharaj, when a devotee really humbly approached him and mentioned

> that he had noticed that he was not pronouncing the holy name properly. My

> gurumaharaj was very grateful for that sincere devotees concern, and as a

> result wrote the Japa reform notebook. Incidentaly HH Satsvarupa Maharaja

> does not claim to be an uttama adhikary.

 

I have read several of Satsvarupa Maharaja's books, and I have always been

surprised of his humility and openness, which I have rarely seen among other

gurus.

 

> As far as I am gathering, according to Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

> Maharaja a person who's pure devotee guru has left such as Bhaktivinoda

> Thakur, or even Srila Prabhupada if he did not yet become realised, then

> he needs to HEAR the teachings of Srila Prabhupada from a pure devotee

> (thats what Bhaktisiddhanta says in several ways in that brilliant

> article).

 

That is what I was thinking also.

 

> It is the nature of vaisnavas that they always seek pure shelter. So what

> is the harm for devotees to seek shelter, of each other and of other pure

> souls? If there is confusion regarding the teachings of the acarya, Srila

> Prabhupada, and if there appear to be controversies, who would be better

> to clear them up, than a pure devotee, who could give us an unambigous

> answer, because he is actualy with Krsna, in the highest sense?

 

I agree.

 

> If our guru is not already on the highest stage, but if he is prayerful,

> and always seeking the shelter of the supreme, then surely the Supreme

> Lord Krsna WILL send help. Krsna DOES care about us, and if we are

> sincere, will send a person who we can love, and who will never replace or

> overshadow any love we actualy have for Srila Prabhupada.

 

I believe that to be true.

 

> One of the symptoms of a vaisnava is humility, so if we see that, it is a

> good indication. If we see false pride, we should probabaly be alarmed.

 

> Unfortunately many many disciples may be having a lot of doubts now after

> all the falldowns of other supposedly 'uttama' gurus.

 

> As has been mentioned, If there is no uttama guru present you can accept a

> lesser qualified guru, but that is not the best. But at the very least

> that guru should be humble enough to admit that he is not an uttama. Of

> course if we are not ourselves an uttama adhikary it is almost impossible

> to know who is one. But at least we can say that if someone appears to

> have a lot of pride, that is a bad sign (but you have to really look to

> see that, and not delude yourself).

>

> It is very important to remember that above all a vaisnava is humble in

> his dealings with other true vaisnavas or at least aspiring vaisnavas. Of

> course we should not be duped by false humility, simply digging a hole in

> the Temple room floor to get 3 inches lower than the rest, or other easily

> imitatable falsehoods will not do.

 

What a brilliant text! Thank you.

 

Ys,

Jkd