More food for thought...

[Guest guest]

> > We are still waiting for evidence that following this instruction

> > constitutes some new 'siddhanta'. The order may be unusual, or even

> unique, but acaryas are perfectly entitled to make adjustments according

> to time place and circumstance, in line with sastric injunctions. There is

> no sastric injunction prohibiting a guru from giving diksa just because he

> leaves the planet, at least none that anyone has found in Srila

> Prabhupada's teachings.

 

 

> Here Adri once again displays his tendency to make up the rules as he goes

> along. This is called self-serving. He uses the logic that even if you

> can't find an example of a postumous intiation system in the history of

> the world, he is justified in implementing that system because the order

> was somehow "unusual" or "even unique".

> Adri should apply the same logic to Srila Prabhupada's instructions to his

> disciples in numerous letters and lectures (quotes already supplied)that

> they should become guru, and even initiate. The ritviks say that because

> nowhere in scripture does it say a guru can fall down, Srila Prabhupada

> could not have ordered his disciples to be diksa gurus. Nor is there an

> example, according them, that any diksa guru in our line has fallen down.

> But also according to them "acaryas are perfectly entitled to make

> adjustments according to time and circumstance, in line with sastric

> injuntions." That means Srila Prabhupada's recommendation for some of his

> disciples to intitiate, even if they later fell down, is justified by the

> same logic. The order may have been unusual or even unique, but following

> Srila Prabhupada's words "disciple of my disciple,regular guru," and

> "grand disciples" doesn't constitute some new siddhanta, even applying the

> ritvik's own logic.