Initiation (?)

[Guest guest]

> So, the natural question would be, why would Srila Prabhupada

> chose specifically some disciples among all others to get

> into "business" of initiating (in his behalf) if he didn't

> want them to go with the same practice after his departure?

> Srila Prabhupada did nothing without some reason. For me,

> to chose several of his disciples and get them practice

> and train giving initiations makes Srila Prabhupada's

> intention fully clear that some additional "b&w" confirmation

> "You should continue giving initiations and accepting disciples

> in your own name after my departure" was not needed. It was.

 

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. 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?

 

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). 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. 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?

 

The point is that Srila Prabhupada definately did want his disciples to

become gurus. He also definately did want them to become qualified.

 

Look at it this way. Lets us hypothesise that some of those 11 really wanted

to be guru (an immediate disqualification for the post), I am saying this

because I have heard that there were such covetous desires, but I cannot

prove it. The GBC has admitted that the zonal acarya system was

unauthorised, and has apologised for it, so we can see that there was

certainly some dishonesty going on, or why would they have implemented it in

the first place.

 

Some of those 11 probabaly felt they had to justify their lack of

qualification, so they found as many quotes from Srila Prabhupada's books to

establish a minimum standard, and hinted and allowed speculation that they

were actualy pure devotees (I remember at that time a story going around

that each of them manifest one of 11 qualities of Srila Prabhupada, that in

sum, they were Srila Prabhupada). At that time, 1977 many senior devotees

were somewhat clued up on siddhanta, fresh from Prabhupadas direct

association and knew that to be guru you have to be completely pure.

 

Pradyumna Prabhu was one of the first to raise objections, and was demonised

and kicked out. You can imagine the effect that might have had on any other

godbrothers who may have considered speaking up. Actualy many did in their

various locations, and many were also chased out. So from then on for the

next 11 years, misconceptions regarding siddhanta abounded, many devotees

were weaned on such misconceptions.

 

I find it amazing that after more than 30 years of ISKCON we are still

debating this. This is the most basic fundamental kmowledge, who is a guru.

This is the information that any spirit soul who wishes to advance should

know. It should be extensively and exhaustively available to anyone who

first joins our movement, yet here we are still debating it.

 

Amazingly the answers are all there in Srila Prabhupadas books, but I feel

they are hidden because we have tended to weaken certain terms, such as

'devotee', 'pure devotee', 'pure chanting' etc. I find Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta's Harmonist article so inspiring, because that article hits

the nail on the head. We need a pure devotee to cut through the speculation,

and give us the knowledge from the source. The only way we will get that, is

if we REALY want it. Otherwise we will get cheated.

 

Srila Prabhupada did want us to know the teachings of the previous acaryas,

and they do reveal a lot more deep siddhantic points. I think we should

remember that Srila Prabhupada was introducing western, rank neophyte people

to eastern ideas and thought, who already were carrying the cultural baggage

and conditioning of western lifestyle. They could not easily comprehend full

siddhanta. Imagine the first devotees, only nine or less years previously

used to place their cigarette packets on Lord Jagannatha's head, and

Prabhupada would tolerate. He had to wean us.

 

Now however 30 years have passed and we have many children who grew up with

Krsna culture. Our own people are matured significantly more than they were

then. We have almost zero training going on in our movement, except for a

few courses that a priveledged few can afford to attend. Personaly I think

we will get nowhere if we don't do something about this. We owe it to our

people to train them in great depth in siddhanta, as well as varnasrama of

course.

 

Some say that some leaders have been more interested in establishing

themselves, so they need a lot of enthusiastic 'yes men' to do and not ask.

New people are ideal for this as they dont ask too many questions, and you

can easily indoctrinate them to be humble. Older devotees ask too many

questions, and are a pain, so why should we bother with them. Let them get a

job.

 

Oops, did I go too far?

 

My point is that I beleive Srila Prabhupada gave us everything, but that we

have minimised his teachings. I also beleive that we need pure souls to

enlighten us, and clear up the apparent contradictions in his works.

 

Srila Prabhupada himself says this in a lecture in Rome, May 27th 1974:

 

"Unless one is svanubhavam, SELF REALISED (emphasis mine) [unless his] life

is Bhagavat, he cannot preach Bhagavat. That will not be effective. A

gramaphone will not help (listening to tapes?). Therefore Caitanya

Mahaprabhu's secretary, Svarupa Damodara, reccomended, bhagavata pora giya

bhagavata sthane, that "if you want to read Srimad Bhagavatam, you must

approach a person who is life giving Bhagavata" Bhagavata pora giya

bhagavata sthana. Otherwise there is no question of BHagavata realisation...

 

There are many scriptures, many religious scriptures, especialy the Vedas.

Sruti means Veda. Sruti is learned by hearing, not by reading. You can

understand Vedic principle even though you are illiterate, provided you hear

them, aural reception. God has given you the ear. And if you try to hear

submissively, to hear something, then it will be fruitful."

 

He also says in the Bhagavatam 7.13.9:

"Srimad Bhagavatam itself is meant for the paramahmasa (paramo nirmatsaram

satam). Unless one is in the paramahamsa stage, he is not eligible to

understand the Srimad Bhagavatam."

 

Sd