No EVIDENCE

[Guest guest]

On 20 May 1999, Temple Calcutta wrote:

 

>

> > > 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.

>

 

> Then you accept that it is not against sastra for a current link to remain

current for long periods. At least that is a baby step in the right direction.

>

 

Still, those acaryas remaine known as Lord Brahma, Narada Muni and Srila

Vyasadeva. Further, they are generally not thought of as interacting within

the normal confines of the human social experience. They are current both

spiritually and 'physically' present, though the physical presence of Lord

Brahma, etc, is something beyond our current sensual experience.

 

All the same, it is interesting to note that the disciples of these acaryas

(for instance, Narada and Vyasa) appeared to offer diksa while their own

spiritual master was still 'present', but life in the higher realms in the

mateial world surely is of a different quality than what we know here.

 

 

>

> Why do you think only siksa relationship is not bound? You are just making

it up as you go along.

 

 

You obviously see it different, but I again propose based on Prabhupada's

general teachings, that the Gaudiya Vaisnava history and tradition does not

offer evidence supporting the eternal rtvik proposal, and the fact that Srila

Prabhupada's so called order as presented by the rtivik party is extremely

vague when compared to the otherwise concise style of Prabupada's teachings.

 

I can respect the idea that we share a different point of view on this, but it

must now be almost a half dozen times you've asked me to repeat this point.

 

> Do I really need to post all those quotes

> saying how physical presence is not important within guru disciple

> relationships, surely not a fifth time?

>

 

 

Boy, I was just complaining of the same thing, being constantly asked to

repeat myself. You can post as you like, but from what I've see, the quotes

you present are directed toward the siksa relationship, which in my

understanding, is the essence of any guru/disciple relationship, with or

without formal diksa recognition.

 

Since the guru disciple relationship is not bound by material issues, why

bother with the diksa ceremony on any level? We simply accept within our

heart, and thus there is no need for controversial external formalities.

 

Thus, if taken even more creatively, the eternal rtvik proposal banishes the

need for all formalities. I mean who needs regulative principles, we've

accepted and been accepted in our hearts and are thus saved! Woopi! I'm

ordering Domino's.

 

The siksa disciplic relationship is not bound by a formal diksa ceremony.

Ideally we should have that siksa relationship with our diksa guru, but

apparently that may not always there. This is my honest understanding.

 

 

>

> If you think the above is dubious then may Krsna help you, I give up.

>

> ys Adri

 

 

Hopefully He will (Krsna that is, you can give up any time you like!) The

quotes are very clear, my contention is with a particular interpretation

relating to the essential quality of what it means to be a disciple.

 

For instance, the guru/disciple relationship, particularly the siksa aspect of

it, needs to be cultivated. Similarly, our relationship with Krsna needs to be

cultivated. Rubber stamping 'I love Krsna' or 'my diksa guru is a

maha-bhagavata' will not successfully superscede the internal process of

self-realization. To the contrary, I suspect it will simply turn itself into

an endorsement of the neophyte conception as something on a level that it is

not meant to be taken.

 

ys,

 

Sthita.