Guest guest Posted May 3, 1999 Report Share Posted May 3, 1999 > My point is that I wonder whether such a guru ever was bona fide. What I > meant with: > > "It is unheard of in the history of our parampara, a bona fide guru cannot > fall down, which means that my spiritual master was never in "good > standing" as a guru." > > was that I believe that a bona fide guru never can fall down, only one who > never was bona fide. What we would have to first come into common understanding is the meaning of this "bona fide" guru. I am sure we would, on the first surfs through the Folio, get the whole specter of meanings. From those highly demanding that I can't hardly think anybody in ISCKON would be "passing" so smoothly (like, to be freed from any trace of any material desire), till those that perhaps, say, 90 % of ISCKON members would just fly through (like, to simply be repeating what heard from one's own guru). When I think about my being initiated into the process of bhakti-yoga, I just can't find anything that was "off" or improper or not bona fide. Except that, see now, the initiating spiritual master was not an infallible uttama-adhikari. But tell me who is. I just do not see enough reasoning (in the absence of the convincing sastric evidence) that will explain why the phrase "a bona fide initiating guru" would be refering to an exclusive post of only an infallible devotee of Krsna. I wouldn't mind at all to have Maharaja Bharata as my initiating guru althought he inventionally felt and became a dear in his next life time. Then my COM adress would go: "Mahanidhi (das) MB". Wow! (Maybe I should change it into it anyway. "MB" also may stand for "Mercedes Benz", and that's really an uttama-car.) ys mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.