Initiation (?)

[Guest guest]

> I will ask this as humbly and sincerely as I can: You have told us all

> many times that one should never take a guru who is less than a living

> uttama-adhikari/mahabhagavata pure devotee. You are therefore telling us

> that Satsvarupa Maharaja is such a personality on this planet at this

> time?

 

I have stated that in my opinion (for what it is worth), after reading the

opinion of Srila Prabhupada, that gurus, less than uttama, are not the best.

As a result of our debate, I accept that if one feels inspired, he can

accept a madhyama guru. Someone may say that I have done this. The great

thing is that a genuine vaisnava will not mislead his disciple. Such a

vaisnava will also realise the value of serving uttama devotees, and will

always hanker for such service, apart from his service to Srila Prabhupadas

ISKCON. (What person who wishes to consider himslef a devotee, would NOT

want to serve a pure devotee, if the opportunity arose). If we are sincere

the Lord will always send us help in the form of pure devotees, he will

never let us down. I have not stated that Satsvarupa Maharaja is an uttama

adhikary.

 

I have already accepted my guru. I may in due course of time also accept

other siksa gurus. I do also accept the siksa of Srila Prabhupada. I do not

feel though that I can acheive the mercy of Srila prabhupada, any more than

I can acheive the mercy of the other living previous acaryas, unless it is

by following the instructions in their books, and finding an uttama devotee

to serve. Pranbhupada reccomends we find a pure devotee, so why not take

that seriously?

 

My main point of contention is that I feel that ISKCON should make training

in guru tattva, obligatory. And that all new devotees who come to ISKCON

should be fully clear on the siddhanta in this regard, and not have to

wrangle through a conference such as this. Sidhanta means conclusion. I do

not have the qualification to do this. But I feel it must be done.

>

> I am not asking this sarcastically. I have always liked my godbrother

> Satsvarupa Maharaja. He has given me good siksa instructions in his

> lectures. But I have not kept track of his activities. I have read his

> books, but reading, of course, is of no real merit.

 

Do you really think reading is of no merit! I would have thought reading,

if it leads one to surrender to a pure devotee, would have the greatest

merit. If by reading the literatures of Srila Prabhupada one comes to the

point where he is ready to search out a bonafide spiritual master, so that

he can reach the place he has read so much about, goloka vrindavan, and meet

that transcendental Cowherd Boy, Sri Krsna, face to face, then that would be

glorious. That person might become despondent because he never met Srila

Prabhupada, that wonderful prema bhakta. But then again he might become

encouraged to hear that if he really hankers for spiritual life, Krsna will

send him a prema bhakta, just as he sent Narada to Dhruva. Spritual life is

full of hope. We may not beleive in perfection, but Srila Prabhupada does,

and he tells us about it in his books. All we have to do is go through the

process of realising it. To read such books is to fill ones life with hope,

but then you know that.

>

> If Satsvarupa Maharaja is such a mahabhagavata as you imply then shouldn't

> he be installed as the next acarya, number 33 on the list?

 

Did I imply such a thing? I took great pains to try not to do that. This is

the trouble with this means of communication. If one tries to cover all the

possible misunderstandings that someone may pick up on, the text would

become way too bulky. Srila Prabhupada accepted the worship of his

disciples, and did not restrict them. Satsvarupa Maharaja wishes his

disciples to keep his worship to the bare minimum. He has his reasons for

this, and I respect them. Why put him where he does not want to be? He is

also a person with free choice.

 

> And if you tell us he is not a mahabhagavata or you do not know if he is

> such, why would you accept him as your guru?

 

I accepted him as my guru 16 years ago. He is very dear to me, and to others

of my godbrothers and sisters. Our relationship is a very personal thing. He

is a very sensitive person also. I think I have probabaly made a great

mistake in dragging his good name into this conference. If I am pressed too

much in this detail, leaving this conference would be preferable to damaging

my relationship with him.

 

I must respectfully request you to please not continue to question me in

this regard, as I feel it is not my position to speak on the position of my

guru. My relationship with him is a personal thing, and as far as I am

concerned the details of that are not to be dragged through a public

conference. I am trying not to drag this down to a personal level.

 

Let me pose some questions.

 

Should guru tattva siddhanta be established or not?

If it is established should we follow it?

Should we consider all of Srila Prabhupadas instructions in his books etc,

or only some of them?

 

I am not attached to this position or that, I only wish to see truth

established, and I feel it still needs to be done. Is there something wrong

with that?

 

Your servant

 

Samba das

[Guest guest]

On 15 May 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> Even though Srila Bhaktisiddhanta wasn't personally present all the time

> with Srial Prabhupada, Srila Prabhupada was still rendering personal

> service, and following personal instructions.

 

 

So, Srila Prabhupada was following those same personal instructions after the

passing of his guru from this mortal world?

 

 

 

> Personal association doesn't need to mean actual physuical presence

> daily, as you seem to be struggling with. You had Srila Prabhupada's

> personal approval for your initiation, and you recieved personal

> instructions from him, even though he wasn't personally looking you in

> the eye at the time.

 

 

So why does the guru have to be "living" to give this type of instruction? Do

not his personal instructions live on forever in his teachings/books?

[Guest guest]

On 15 May 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

>

> There is the heart connection of diksa, and there is the external

> ritual acknowledging that connection. In the ritual, the guru chants

> on the beads and gives them to his disciple.

 

 

So if Srila Prabhupada did not chant on one's beads in an external ritual the

diksa can still take place in the heart?

[Guest guest]

On 15 May 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> I think you are obsessing on this point way beyond what is productive.

 

Please forgive this fallen, thick fool. In the future you may find it easier

to just hit the delete key on my comments.

 

 

> Of course it was books, tapes, and other devotees. So what? If I

> personally plant the seeds in my garden, or I employ someone to plant

> them for me, what is the difference? They are still my plants.

>

> Srila Prabhupada is available to everyone through his books etc as

> siksa. I think everyone agrees on that point.

 

 

I also agree on this point. But that is not the point we are discussing.

 

 

> What are you trying to

> prove by this insistence on making this point about physical presence?

 

 

First, this is important to me personally. I'm sorry if it agitates you,

Prabhu. You stated previously that diksa connection takes place in the heart

and that an "external" ritual takes place with chanting on beads, etc. But in

many cases, like mine and many of my godbrothers, there was no chanting on

beads but we have to hope that diksa took place between Srila Prabhupada and

us spiritually in the heart. This certainly seemed to be one of Srila

Prabhupada's authorized methods of giving diksa because that is exactly how it

was done in ISKCON for many disciples.

 

Secondly, I am concerned for many of Srila Prabhupada's wonderful

granddisciples who have been left in a difficult situation due to cheating

"gurus". They did not receive diksa from these cheating gurus obviously or, if

they did, it was by the grace of Srila Prabhupada in his "non-living" form. If

they did not receive diksa yet it would seem logical that they could receive

diksa from Srila Prabhupada through the heart connection you mentioned just as

my self and many other disciples did even though the external ritual (which

requires a "living" guru's presence) may not take place.

 

Thirdly, I think it is important enough to spend a bit of time discussing it

intelligently without undue emotion and narrow-mindedness or fear of some

imagined "ritvik evil monster conspiracy" which I find very childish and high

school clique consciousness - name calling. It is important for the millions

of fallen souls "out there" who have a right of access to a pure devotee like

Srila Prabhupada. This is most important. Obviously we do not seem to be

developing an excess of pure devotee gurus in present day ISKCON.

 

Does this really mean the that no one can receive diksa from him as you say

"through the heart" connection? Is "physical/living" presence required for

this? Does the "external" ritual have to take place by the same guru or can it

be performed by ritviks on behalf of the pure guru?