Which sastra says...?

[Guest guest]

Dear Vidvan Gauranga Prabhu, Please accept my humble obeisances. All Glories

to Srila Prabhupada.

 

> The way the pro-rtviks put it is absurd: "A powerful diksa-guru such as

> Srila Prabhupada CAN post-humously initiate and accept disciples. Which

> sastra says that he cannot do so?"

 

No we do NOT say this. What we say is that Srila Prabhupada ALREADY

was the diksa guru for ISKCON. This was the standard. His books were also

the 'law-books' for ISKCON. 16 rounds etc. was also the standard. If you

wish to CHANGE these standards at ANY TIME - either pre or post departure -

you need Authority from Srila Prabhupada. That's ALL we are saying. And

instead of just coming forward and presenting this authority- which is a

simple enough request - what does the GBC representative and expert pandit

Ajamila do on current CHAKRA debate:

 

He gives 'straw man 'arguments;

Attacks us for being deviants;

Presents a 'law' that is NOT traditional, after telling us we must

follow tradition;

Contradicts the GBC by saying the ritvik turns into a ritvik-acarya;

 

No wonder the IRG is growing. As long as we continue to be mis-represented,

then as soon as people find out what we are actually saying then they become

convinced by us, as it now seems to be happening on the CHAKRA debate.

 

So please present this authority from SRILA PRABHUPADA - that's all we ask.

 

> "One's first duty is to accept a bona fide spiritual master. The student

> or disciple should be very inquisitive; he should be eager to know the

> complete truth about eternal religion (sanatana-dharma). The words

> guru-susrusaya mean that one should personally serve the spiritual master

> by giving him bodily comforts, helping him in bathing, dressing, sleeping,

> eating and so on. This is called guru-susrusanam. A disciple should serve

> the spiritual master as a menial servant, and whatever he has in his

> possession should be dedicated to the spiritual master." (SB 7.7.30-31,

> purport)

>

> Note the word "diksa" in the Sanskrit. Here it is stated that one should

> take diksa from a guru and personally serve him. Therefore he must be

> personally present.

 

The above verse uses the word 'disciple' NOT 'pre-initiated' aspiring

disciple. Thus this requirement for 'personal service' is just as applicable

to the initiated disciple. Thus by Vidvan prabhu's logic that means once the

Guru leaves the planet this 'personal service' is not possible. That means

ALL of Srila Prabhupada's disciples inluding his own Guru Maharaja, are

disobeying Srila Rupa Goswami, according to Vidvan prabhu.

 

This a common mistake made by many persons when they present 'evidence'

showing the necessity for a 'physically' present Guru. The verses in

question invariably mention the word 'disciple' , and not 'aspiring

disciple'. That means, the verse is applicable to the disciples who have

already been initiated. Therefore the verse CANNOT be implying the need for

a physically present guru, otherwise as soon as the guru departs, the

disciple would no longer be able to serve the guru, and we know that is not

the case since otherwise all of Srila Prabhupada's disciples would have been

condemned for the last 22 years.

 

Thus please note that the above verse, and other verses like it, do not

state that the 'personal service' is LIMITED to ONLY the 'aspiring bhakta',

but rather they say it is applicable for the disciple - that is someone who

is already initiated.

 

What you actually need is a verse which states that BEFORE one gets

initiated, the spiritual master does need to be physucally present, but that

after the guru departs, his physical presence is no longer required. Thus

unless the verse makes an explicit distinction between aspiring disciples

and actual disciples, those who use these verses to demonstrate the need for

a physically present guru are simply shooting themselves in the foot, and

condemning every disciple of Srila Prabhupada in the movement, just as

Vidvan Prabhu has done here.

 

> Jala means water and anayana means to bring. If someone is told to bring

> water, it is understood that he must bring it in a suitable container.

> This maxim refers to saying something which is not stated, but is

> nevertheless understood. It doesn't have to be explicitly stated because

> it is plain to understand.

 

Well the word 'disciple' IS explicitly stated, and if you wish to conclude

that the Guru MUST be physically present then it must be applicable for all

disciples who have gurus, which means all the Srila Prabhupada disciples,

including Bhakti Vikasa Swami who 'found' this verse, are in trouble

according to Vidvan prabhu.

 

Ys, Sattvik Das