No EVIDENCE

[Guest guest]

>

>Thank you for giving me a chance to explain myself more clearly.

 

and thank you for explaining it so clearly!

 

ys, bb

[Guest guest]

I've been away a few days. Unfortunately it appears I have way too many

external formalities to deal with that keep interfearing with my inner life on

COM.

 

I probably already responding to this text, and countless others have also

done so along similar exciting lines, but this one did look like so much fun I

couldn't help not taking another shot.

 

 

>>

>> 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,

 

Yes, there are distinct technical issues that separate the practice of the

siksa and diksa relationship.

 

 

>we are discussing the length of time acaryas can

>remain current, and that can be even millions of years.

 

 

In cases similar to that of Lord Brahma, it would be countless billions, being

that is the description of his life span. But we still haven't been able to

find an example of an acarya offering hari nama diksa after his physical

departure -- as in leaving one's current material body behind for the samadhi

ceremony.

 

Otherwise, yes, all the acaryas remain spiritually viable -- "He reasons ill

who think that Vaisnavas die..."

 

 

>Therefore your

>argument that ritvik stops succession is not supported merely because Srila

Prabhupada remains current for the duration of ISKCON.

>

 

I would suggest that Srila Prabhupada's relevance is not dependent on ISKCON.

ISKCON is simply one jewel in his multifarious preaching glories. It arguably

Srila Prabhupada's strongest claim that he presented the entire Guadiya

Vaisnava siddhanta 'as it is'. We don't need to concoct imaginary diksa

initiations to prove Srila Prabhupada's ongoing spiritual viability.

 

Beyond TFO's creative explainations there remains no evidence of wholesale

hari nama diksa ever being performed after an acarya's physical departure.

Neither Srila Prabhupada or Srila Bhaktisiddhanta have ever mentioned such

practices. In comparison, ISKCON most recent self-appointed siksa acarya, dear

ol' KKD, appears to relentlessly obsess on the imaginary possibility of such

things.

 

 

 

>Physical presence of

>guru is seperate issue, that we have proven is irrelevant to transmission of

knowledge which is definition of diksa.

>

 

 

In the mind of many, you have mostly only proven you can increadibly restate

this argument over and over in spite of so many credible arguments pointing

out TFO's critical flaw in understanding what is diksa and what is siksa.

Transmission of knowlege is not dependent on diksa. For instance, Srila

Prabhupada accepted Srila Bhaktisiddhanta as his siksa guru eleven years

before taking diksa -- and I'll personally give you 100K laxmi points if you

can find a quote where he claimed to have been bereft of a spiritual

relationship involving the transmission of knowledge during that period of

time.

 

 

>Why do you keep bringing up physical absence as though it had something to do

with diksa?

>

 

 

Because it is a valid point. We have yet to find examples of an acarya

performing diksa without being physically manifest in the ordinary sense of

the understanding.

 

 

>If you ever do find evidence absolutely linking diksa with

>physical presence then you better send it on to Ajamila, he will need all the

help he can get in the upcoming debate on CHAKRA. The rest of your points

merely repeat misconceptions dealt with before.

>

>

 

Obviously many are much more concerned with your arguments and alleged

misconceptions. May God help our poor Calcutta judge when so many senior

Prabhupada men regularly complain about certain exhaustive repetition tactics

that take us nowhere.

 

ys,

 

Sthita