Initiation (?)

[Guest guest]

> I would guess that for ISKCON, to say someone previously offering diksa

> was at the time behaving like a respectable Vaisnava would at least not

> make a mockery of the tradition. No one is pretending that difficult and

> unfortuante situations are desirable.

 

I did of course take diksa initiation from my previous spiritual master

because I believed him to be qualified, and he definately appeared to be

behaving like a respectable vaisnava to me. I guess I was also influenced by

the vast worship of him performed by others who were my seniors. I find it

important that I try to see the positive in what he did for me.

 

> Further, I would suggest it niave to consider such things never happened

> previously, they just didn't get blasted all over VNN. For instance, there

> are historical cases reported in the Gaudiya Math of sanyassi and even

> 'appointed acaryas' experiencing difficulties. When one does small things,

> his mistakes often go unnoticed. In comparison, Srila Prabhupada set up

> ISKCON as an attempt to organize something on an international scale.

 

Sure. I am no expert on this subject. But Srila Prabhupada writes in CC

Madhya ch. 1, verse 220 that an acarya cannot be voted into his position, he

is self-effulgent. (He does not write that exact sentance, but these points

are there).

 

It does not matter whether a lot of persons believe that a person is a

qualified guru or acarya, because either he is or he is not qualified /

authorized, and GBC resolutions or other decisions made by votes cannot

change that. To belong to guru-tattva, a person must be Krishna's true

representative, and the problem is that persons on my level have problems

discriminating whether a guru is on that level or not. And unfortunately

that has been seen even in ISKCON and Gaudiya Math, that leaders mistakenly

believe that an unauthorized person is authorized.

 

The above is something I believe to be true, but I am no authority on it.

Anyone else knowing more about this?

 

> Again, it appears the actual catalyst of the guru/disciple relationship is

> the relationship, not the formality. If one feels one is re-entering a

> relationship where one feels intimately connected to the disciplic

> succession, I don't believe it is against ISKCON's policy for one to have

> the desire to formalize such things within our standard tradition. It is

> just that there should be a feeling of introspectiveness and gravity about

> such affairs, not rushing from one situation to the next in a mood of

> desperation.

 

That is true. To whimsically jump from one guru to the next must be very

dangerous. As you mention, a relationship does not necessarily have to be

formalized with diksa immideately, even if one is inspired by the

relationship with a guru. Our parampara is more of a siksa-line anyway, as

far as I know.

 

> It seems to me that relationship should come before the formality. Also,

> it does not appear that one necessarily needs to formalize a siksa

> relationship with diksa. Thus one can have a siksa relationship with

> someone, oh, as a hypothetical example, lets say someone like Srila

> Prabhupada, without needing to become his 'direct disciple' after his

> physical departure.

 

I agree. I believe that we all should try to develop a strong siksa

relationship with Srila Prabhupada. We can anyway never take diksa from him,

since he is not present to give his approval or denial.

 

> Surely Krsna will protect His devotees even if they find themselves in

> awkward situations. After all, that seems to be the story line presented

> to us in such literatures as the Mahabharata, and so on, and on, and on.

 

I am convinced that Krishna will always facilitate those who genuinely want

to be his devotees, even if they are very unadvanced. That gives me strong

hope.

 

Ys

Jkd