Guru, sadhu and sastra.

[Guest guest]

On 23 May 1999, Gunamani dd wrote:

 

> > Unfortunately you seem to forget about the thousands of disciples who were

> > left out in the cold by bogus gurus as the result of being coerced into a

> > guru relationship which did not look carefully enough at the

> > qualifications necessary to become a guru.

 

> As far as I understand they became connected not only to the spiritual

> master but through him also to the rest of the family, parampara and Lord

> Krishna as long as their sincere surrender was never only to him exclusively

> but to the Supreme Lord. If a spiritual master violates this principle the

> instruction is not to follow him as shown by Bali Maharaja.

 

 

 

I do not doubt there connection because Srila Prabhupada's mercy is there

always. But the point is that there is a system which breeds some bogus

cheating gurus and this can't be considered OK, can it? What is your

suggestion to our leaders to correct this?

 

> "Regarding the disciplic succession coming from Arjuna, disciplic

> succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially.

> Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion." (SPL to

> Dinesh, 31st October, 1969)

>

> Seems to prove the point of formal diksa not being absolutely nessecary.

> But was it the example Srila Prabhupada advised his followers to set up?

 

 

Now there is the million dollar question!

 

 

All of your quotes about becoming guru left out all those times that Srila

Prabhupada told us, "On my order". Why?

 

 

 

 

> > Can you show me anywhere in his books where he directly said that after he

> > left the planet no one could accept him as their guru?

> I never said that.

> Can you show me where he directly says that after he left the planet he

> would still continue to give diksa?

 

 

If he was already giving diksa to disciples who he never met

"physically/bodily" why would he be concerned if he knew we would just

continue with the program he had instituted from the beginning after his

departure?

 

Remember, even though we make a huge thing about diksa constantly, Srila

Prabhupada considered it a minor thing compared to Krsna consciousness.

 

> The phrases you left out were as far as I could see essentiel for

> understanding the message:

> "Regarding parampara system: there is nothing to wonder for big

> gaps.[..Just like we belong to the Brahma sampradaya, so we accept it from

> Krsna to Brahma, Brahma to Narada, Narada to Vyasadeva, Vyasadeva to Madhva,

> and between Vyasadeva and Madhva there is a big gap. But it is sometimes

> said that Vyasadeva is still living, and Madhva was fortunate enough to meet

> him directly. In a similar way)we find in the Bhagavad-gita that the Gita

> was taught to the sungod, some millions of years ago, but Krishna has

> mentioned only three names in this parampara system--namely, Vivasvan, Manu,

> and Iksvaku; and so these gaps do not hamper from understanding the

> parampara system. We have to pick up the prominent acaryas, and follow from

> him.[...There are many branches also from the parampara system, and it is

> not possible to record all the branches and sub-branches in the disciplic

> succession] We have to pick up from the authority of the acharya in whatever

> sampradaya we belong to."

> (Letter Dayananda 4/12/68)

 

 

 

I do not see where the meaning has changed. The point I was trying to convey

was to pick up the prominent acarya and follow from him, like Visvanatha

Cakravarti Thakur did from Narottama dasa Thakur 100 years later.

 

 

 

 

> as you know quite well I am your inferior both in age, status and

> experience.

 

 

Maybe age.

 

 

 

>Sorry for the long text but please note to my excuse that *my*

> words were few.

 

 

Noted.