Guest guest Posted March 6, 2002 Report Share Posted March 6, 2002 > And the very conclusion, that is in full agreement with the > verse itself: > > "The offenseless chanting of holy name does not depend on the > initiation process. Although initiation may depend on purascarya > or purascarana, the actual chanting of the holy name does not > depend on puruscarya-vidhi, or the regulative principles." > > > Yet, we do accept the formal initiation as the integral > part of the KC process, without any doubt -- because we > are *instructed* to do so. But that we must tell the people > how the disciplic succession flaws only through this formal > initiation while the instruction business is "only supportive"... > I wouldn't do it. Because I don't think that we are really > instructed like that. > "So we have to approach the samprad€ya. Without samprad€ya, whatever we learn, that is not perfect. Samprad€ya-vih…n€s ye mantr€s te niphal€ mat€ƒ. Just like we have got very nice example that in political field there are parties: “This is Congress party,” “This is Communist party,” “This is...” So these parties are recognized. Unless you belong to some party, you cannot stand for election. As it is there in the political field, samprad€ya-vih…n€ ye, they cannot stand, similarly, if one person who desires to advance in spiritual life, he must take initiation from the samprad€ya." [sB lecture, Bombay, 1974] Seems to support what you've posted above. Ys, Braja Sevaki dd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.