Guest guest Posted May 19, 1999 Report Share Posted May 19, 1999 On 19 May 1999, Temple Calcutta wrote: > > > > Tell me about it! Yes, the siksa line is not bound by time or place, but there are no instances of wholesale diksa by a non physically apparent spiritual master. > > > > That is a seperate issue, I guess it would be more 'connected' if you felt you had a snappy answer to it. > we are discussing the length of time acaryas can remain current, and that can be even millions of years. > Sure, like Lord Brahma, Narada Muni and Vyasadeva. They don't have the same physical limitations as experienced in human life. Beyond that, a siksa relationship is not bound by physical presence. > Physical presence of > guru is seperate issue, that we have proven is irrelevant to transmission of knowledge which is definition of diksa. > Proven to yourself, maybe. Without that proof you have no case. This apparent 'proof' remains dubious to many. As others have so apptly suggested, this whole rtivik issue my boil down to learning how to type, as in when to utilze the 's' key and the 'd' key when describing siksa and diksa disciplic relations. I admit defeat -- to Ajamila. I ain't gettin no further with Adri than you did. > Why do you keep bringing up physical absence as though it had something to do with diksa? > Because there is next to no evidence of wholesale post humous ritvik intitiation within our tradition, nor clear instruction on this controversial idea by our founder/acarya, etc etc etc. Misapplication of the word 'henceforward' just does not weigh in against all good reason. ys, Sthita 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.