I agree with everyone.

[Guest guest]

Krishna Dharma wrote:

But the basic paradigm is the same. Guru is a post and must be declared as

such.

 

Sri Rama wrote:

I don't agree. Initiation is a function. In a traditional society, it

would not normally be regulated. Of course, we don't live in a traditional

culture and these are not normal times.

 

If [the] Krishna consciousness [movement] was simply a religious phenomenon,

initiation would be solely a personal concern. But since it is also an

institution,

ISKCON may have a responsibility to guide its members or regulate that role.

 

Krishna Dharma wrote:

Fine. I quite agree that we need to regulate our standards and maintain

institutional integrity (did you not see my texts in this regard?). But I

believe there is a far better way than we use at present. Education and

empowerment is the key, in my view, not control and legislation.

 

Babhru wrote:

In fact, initiation is primarily a personal concern. It's a personal

decision. If the institution pretends to supplant this real relationship

rather than support it, we have trouble. After considering all the

practical arguments favoring legislation as the most effective way of

regulating initiation (all of which fly in the face of our practical

experience of trying to do just that over the last 20-odd years), while I

have to acknowledge and appreciate their good intentions, I will continue

to assert that to emphasize legalistic reasoning over the dicta of guru,

sadhu, and shastra is a recipe for just the kind of trouble we're hoping to

correct, perhaps worse.

 

Ajamila wrote:

You seem to give the impression that 'education and empowerment' cannot

coexist with 'control and legislation' but in Vedic society described

throughout our scriptures we find all four elements working in harmony.

 

I get worried when I hear about 'no control or legislation'. No doubt these

things are subject to much abuse like a knife used the wrong way. But when

applied properly they are useful, when abused great harm is done, and when

absent there is anarchy.

 

Best is if we have PROPER 'control and legislation', a GBC with a

varnashrama

structure just as Srila Prabhupada instructed.

 

Sri Rama now writes:

 

I agree with everybody. What I mean is, all these statements, taken on

their own, appear to be correct. My problem is that they all seem to fall

short of a comprehensive solution. I can't recall any plan I've heard in the

last few decades that addresses all concerns, such as:

 

1) has the approach been used in our sampradaya before?

2) does it avoid legislating that which it should not?

3) does it avoid rubber-stamping (i.e., giving the impression that a

person is now a pure devotee because he known to have disciples?

4) provides an equitable and effective way for all qualified persons to

take part.

5) keeps Srila Prabhupada's unique position clear.

6) avoids facilitating the unqualified.

7) insures that prospective disciples know the criteria for a diksa guru.

8) answers many new devotees' desire for an unequivocal idea of who they

can take initiation from.

9) answers the ritvik challenge that no one except Srila Prabhupada is

qualified to give diksa.

10) clearly complies with the requirement of sadhu, sastra and guru.

 

All these questions have answers. But, is there anywhere a single plan

that reconciles all those answers? I don't mean that everyone must be

perfectly satisfied, because that won't happen. But all these concerns

should be able to be addresses as a comprehensive whole.

 

Your servant,

Sri Rama das

 

[srirama.acbsp (AT) pamho (DOT) net], or

[http://www.krishnagalleria.com]