Initiation (?)

[Guest guest]

>

> While one may ask this question, there is no evidence that he did want

> them to automaticaly assume guruship instantly upon his departure. We can

> speculate.

 

There is, on another forums, going a debate in between Temple

Calcutta (Adri & Madhu) and the "rest" of ISCKON, and this point

is included in as well. On the opposing argument that Srila Prabhupada

did repeatedly instruct his "rtvik initiators" to become regular

initiating gurus after his departure, these two answered:

 

"This is the essence of the controversy. H.H.Jayapataka Maharaja made a

similar assertion where he claimed Srila Prabhupada had said this 'many

dozens of times'. If you recall I challenged him to produce at least 24

quotes since that is the least number the phrase 'many dozens' could imply."

 

 

Thus we all are caught on "Kids, no speculation please."

So, Adri & Madhu are right - there is no technical evidence

that any of those "11" were doing it according to Prabhupada's

will. Hence the derived conclusion is that they all were

acting whimsically and that they were (and still are) unauthorized.

 

 

 

> Of course some did use this doubt to install themselves, and

> cajole the others to accept. The idea was that there was a panic, who will

> continue the movement?

 

Which some did not "use this doubt to install themselves"?

 

I am just curios to see what is it you are basing on your

discrimination in this regard - who did install himself as a

guru, and who didn't.

 

 

>

> But for a few of them to suggest that the 11 should artificialy install

> themselves as gurus, was not necesarily the solution (as we can see from

> some of them).

 

"Self-installed" means unauthorized, bogus.

I am not sure what you are really trying to come up with. I am

wondering since you are, presently, a disciple of one of

"artificially self-installed" gurus?

(wonder if some rtvik proponent is going to quote you for their

case)

 

 

 

> What was needed was sober reflection, and that the senior

> devotees humble themselves, and ask us all to pray for pure guidance,

> because they were not qualified to provide the ultimate solution, as they

> were not actualy in touch with the absolute.

 

Are you suggesting that 20 years ago, right after departure

of Srila Prabhupada "some" of the "Eleven" were qualified for

pure guidance and provision of the ultimate solution (but then

they nevertheless artificially installed themselves into position

of a guru)?

 

How do you know who was, 20 years ago, "in touch with the Absolute"?

What is your method of assertion? Do you wait till someone falls

down, and the cross him from the list of "those who were in

touch with the Absolute (Krsna)"?

 

 

> Instead of artificialy

> accepting disciples, and then running off 20 years later, wouldnt it have

> been better to not accept disciples, but be honest,and let everyone know

> that if they really want guidance they should pray for it?

 

If you would say, "then running off 2 years later", I would go

over. But 20! It could be well 30, or 40, or 50 (whatever

takes one to till falling), for you it is still "then running off".

And you are trying to reconstruct the "best" option, based on

incident some 20 years later.

 

Well, then I could as well as propose that, wouldn't it have been

better that Srila Prabhupada simply didn't cross the Atlantic?

Thus none of those boys wouldn't get inspired to go prematurely

for danda and the guru post. But Prabhupada did not have much

time. So didn't they. Prabhupada must have known that some

of them would be not surviving the war that he took them into.

Some made it through, so far.

 

What happened, happened. And what didn't happen, didn't happen.

 

 

What I would like to hear would be the explanation on how a

someone was able to go on making thousands of Vaisnavas for

20 years, and then "found" out to be - a cheat.

 

 

 

 

 

ys mnd