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.

 

Personaly I dont take much notice of what Adri and Madhu say. I was at one

of the large Ritvik meetings in Bangalore (I went because I lived nearbye,

and was invited). KK Desai is a very good debator, and the way they present

the case for Ritvik is very pursuasive, as long as you ignore all of Srila

Prabhupadas teachings regarding disciplic succession, and the rest of the

parampara. We understand that guru is one. They all uphold siddhanta. they

may alter details here and there according to time and place, but they dont

change siddhanta.

 

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.

 

Well I dont see any *evidence* here. Mind you I must admit I dont have any

evidence either. That whole period after Prabhupada left, seems to be rather

murky. It seems that all sorts of *evidences* seem to crop up, from

poisoning tapes, to ritvik ultimatums, with rumours of destroyed evidence

etc. But why would Srila Prabhupada do something that is against the

tradition. While he told ALL his disciples they should become guru, he also

lets us know what the qualifications for guru are. And one certainly should

not become an unqualified guru. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta never *appointed* any

successor, and I am pretty sure there is no paper signed by Srila prabhupada

that says that those 11 should automaticaly be guru. It does not mean though

that if they are qualified they should not.

 

> > 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"?

 

Well I would hesitate to say what was on all of their minds. I cant say that

I know what they were all thinking. The only thing I recall is that HH

Satsvarupa Maharaja did apologise for his part in it, and was among the

first to ask for reforms, which were initialy rejected.

 

Although we group them together as 'the 11' we have to remember that each of

them has their own motivations, or lack of them, each has his own opinion,

each is an individual.

 

> 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.

 

I am not discriminating, I am just being cautious that I cannot say that

they were all in on some evil conspiracy. I know that when my Gurumaharaja's

initiative for reform was rejected, he continued to be faithful to the GBC

for a full year (after a year they accepted his proposals in full, as far as

I remember) because Srila Prabhupada wanted all the devotees to cooperate.

Cooperation is not an easy thing. It can mean that even if you are convinced

you are right, you may have to shut up and accept defeat. I get the

impression, that mongst the 11 some were much more gung ho about accepting

automatic guruship, and others had to be pursuaded. I remember at the Manor,

Jayatirtha was supposedly extremely reluctant to assume the role, and had to

be almost forced. I dont know if that was true, or if he was just acting to

establish his extreme humility.

> >

> > 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)

 

Well that phrase 'self installed' is a bit ambiguous. It is a fact that in

the early days basicaly any 'guru' in ISKCON was basicaly rubber stamped. In

the Zonal acarya days more so, as you really had to acccept whoever was

closest, which is completely bogus. Nowadays I personaly do not think that

the GBC should endorse or not any person as guru. Rather I feel thay should

spend more energy educating devotees as to what guru is. They should

establish Guru tattva siddhanta. Personaly I think the main reason why this

has not been done, is because if guru tattva was established, many of them

would be exposed.

 

Regarding my Gurumaharaj. The guru disciple relationship is a person to

person thing, and not an institutional thing, regardless of what the

institution does. As far as I can see, he is a sadhu. He is so much more

advanced than me in his quest for self realisation. My relationship with him

is a very personal thing. We correspond (but as he is not on com, it takes a

good few months between letters). Over the last few years I have written to

him every doubt I have had about ISKCON, and he has agreed with practicaly

everything I have had to say. Personaly I am happy with him as my guru. He

does not claim to be a mahabhagavata, but I have seen that he is extremely

serious in his spritual life, much much more than I am. I am in no psotion

to judge to what degree he is pure, all I know is that as far as I can tell,

he is MUCH more advanced. Others may have another perspective. The point is

that Krsna gives us what we desire in our heart, and nothing will change

that.

 

We do have to be very careful to not lump everyone together, and make group

assumptions. I try not to do that, as you have noticed. I cannot claim to

know everyones motivations. The relationship between a sisya and his guru is

very special, and we know it is dangerous to deliberatley diminish that

faith in anyone, a person who does that will go to hell, as the sastras tell

us.

 

So while I wish to see a healthy ISKCON as much as anyone, we have to be

very careful what we say at all times, never 'naming names' if there is any

doubt. I think that our problem nowadays in ISKCON is that we do not have

regular training in Siddhanta. I feel that far too many of our devotees have

far too many misconcpetions regarding siddhanta, and that until systematic,

and widespread education regarding Vaisnava siddhanta, and Varnasrama is in

place our problems will continue.

 

> > 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)?

 

Well I would say that what happened after Srila Prabhupadas departure was

not right. I feel that the devotees should have spent a good amount of time

reviewing all of Srila Prabhupadas orders, and working systematicaly to work

on implementing them, and writing the ISKCON consitution. And generaly being

more careful and considerate, acting more like vaisnavas. Unfortunately it

seems that the mode of passion, and the desire for name and fame overtook

some of them. Which ones? Well I don't feel qualified to say. If there were

to be a test to decide who should be rejected (according to qualification)

in the relationship between HH Satsvarupa Das Goswami, and Samba das, Samba

das would be the sorry looser, because I am just so out of it, (and that is

not just humility for the sake of name and fame, but if I can get a few

miles out of it, whoopeee!)

 

 

> 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)"?

 

Actualy I dont! I dont have a method of assertion, and I have never stated

categoricaly that I did. And if I did state categoricaly, (which I would

normaly try not to) it was a mistake. Besides we do know that it is also

acceptable to be a madhyama or Kanistha guru (so not necesarily 'in touch'

with the absolute), even though it is not the best. How much did you know

about guru Tattva before deciding, did you even have a choice?

 

If a person goes out and says to someone that 'I want to be your disciple,

and that person accepts him, then that is his own lookout. The sastra

enjoins us as to what it takes to enter that relationship. I feel that

ISKCON's GBC should stand clear of that responsibility. The sastra does not

enjoin us to 'consult the GBC' before taking a guru. If you make a bad

choice, does that mean that you really sincerely sought the right choice in

the first place? The fact is that some of those people may have been

qaulified to be a certain type of guru, such as Kanistha or Madhyama, which

is not the best. But ultimately we get what we deserve.

>

> > 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.

 

Sorry, I cant quite get the gist of this one, your English, while normaly

pretty good, is a bit confusing here.

 

As I said above, I think it was a mistake for them to automaticaly assume

guruship the way they did. We all make mistakes. Some make deliberate

mistakes, and some genuine foolish mistakes. So at that time is was a

mistake. That dies not invalidate any of them from ever realising their

mistake, and making ammends. Srila Prabhupada required that mistakes should

be rectified.

>

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

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

 

Excuse me? Sounds a tad extreme.

 

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

 

Very astute observation.

 

> 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.

 

This is one of the misconceptions that really illustrates our dillema. We

are *trying* to become vaisnavas. Personaly I am so far away from that lofty

title. If someone did actualy make thousands of 'Vaisnavas' they would never

fall down, because only a pure soul would be able to make thousands of such

vaisnavas. We should not bandy these terms around so cheaply, it is this

very tendency that so many of us have, that cheapens the whole understanding

of vaisnava siddhanta, and it is why we were so ready to accept anyone who

comes along in the guise of a vaisnava as our guru.

 

Sd