Initiation (?)

[Guest guest]

> >

> > 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.

>

 

> I guess that what you are saying is that neophytes should give any guru

> the benefit of doubt, even if he does not manifest what you believe to be

> genuine spiritual advancement.

>

 

What I mean is that not just anybody has the right to question

someone's qualification's as a guru. It is, on the first place,

the matter between that guru and his disciples. You object the

GBC their involvement by giving their approval or disapproval, yet

in the same time you consider that subjecting somebody's qualification

as a guru for checking by side of just anybody would be in order.

 

 

> If I see an ISKCON guru engaged in something which I read in sastra is the

> example of a materialistic guru, I do make my own conclusions about it,

> even if it may be detrimental for my spiritual life.

 

But so long you do not put your conclusions into the action, I

suppose you are still not questioning that guru's qualification.

You keep your conclusions for yourself, thus one is fairly safe

from possible apparadha. The right way I may think about would

be to present _doubts_ (not "conclusions") to those who are

at least on the same level as that particular guru. And let

them "wash the laundry" (if they find it required).

 

 

 

> If I believe that a guru clearly abuses his position, and I see that GBC

> has been told about it, but does nothing substancial to stop this abuse,

> then I lose faith in the GBC.

>

 

(hmmm... there might be more opportunities for losing faith in the

GBC than only the one above mentioned. )

 

 

> And if I see that the GBC is hesitating to take firm action against a guru

> who I personally am convinced that has been directly or indirectly

> involved in child abuse, I also lose faith in them.

 

(ha, what did I just say!)

 

 

 

>

> > 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.

>

> I am not sure what you mean by that.

 

Well, name here some of the present ISCKON gurus and start discussing

and questioning his qualifications as a guru. The one that you

have made your conclusions about. Observe the result. (Though the

better way would be to predict it)

 

It is simply not our business to do it. As I mentioned already,

you are objecting the institutionalization a of guru post in ISCKON

(so do I, btw.), then right away you propose that "we" take

the "guru-guy" into our hands before he actually falls.

 

 

>

> I did not specifially refer to him with my statement. Maybe "guy" was not

> very proper to use, please excuse me for that.

 

My position is that the fall down is not a shame, and that we

simply do not know everything about somebody who used to be

performing outstanding service for considerable time, and then

happened to fall. So better to simply avoid the approach "from

above". The safe way of running.

 

 

>

> I know that there are many who think that these 11 were never actually

> authorized to initiate by Srila Prabhupada, but that they drew that

> conclusion themseves.

 

I was just responding on that to Samba prabhu.

 

There are also many who think that nobody has ever been

actually authorized by Prabhupada to initiate. As in the case

of the "original eleven", there is no explicit evidence that

Prabhupada authorized anybody.

 

 

 

> Srila Prabhupada said that he wanted a lot of his

> disciples to become gurus, but since it is written many places in Srila

> Prabhupada's books what should be the qualification of a guru, it can be

> questioned whether it is obvious whether he wanted the "original 11" to

> initiate own disciples immideately after his departure or not.

>

 

Immediately after his departure, or 20 years later, for us will

still make no difference, since we came to understanding that

at least 7 of those 11 have never been uttama-adhikaris. So

how long they would have to wait?

 

 

 

 

> I am no authority on this, and I wonder what others know about it. Maybe I

> get killed for even saying such a thing, but I would like to get this

> clear, if it is possible.

 

No worry, the "Russians" are not on COM.

 

 

 

 

ys mnd