Guest guest Report post Posted October 28, 2005 > 1) "The Guru must be 'living' ." > > a) Srila Prabhupada never states this. That is a ludicrous argument ("Srila Prabhupada did not say, therefore the opposite is true"). > b) Srila Prabhupada never physically met the vast majority of his > disciples, yet they were initiated. This is an unproven claim. Please prove that Srila Prabhupada never physically met the vast majority of his disciples. > Thus initiations can not require the physical presence of the Guru. This is speculation ("I have heard that Srila Prabhupada did such-and-such, therefore we can conclude such-and-such"). > c) Neither have the very persons claiming we must accept them as Gurus, > simply because they are 'living', had a 'living' (physically present) Guru > for over 25 years. So if they have not needed a 'living Guru' for more > than 25 years, why do their disciples? Srila Prabhupada was physically present (an interactive communication was possible) when they have been initiated. > Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax > ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com Learn the truth about the IRM ritvik hoax. Join the "Initiation in ISKCON" forum. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 1, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > > 1) "The Guru must be 'living' ." > > > > > > a) Srila Prabhupada never states this. > > > > That is a ludicrous argument ("Srila Prabhupada did not say, therefore > > the opposite is true"). > > If he never stated 1) above, as mention in a) above, then it is true. So > what is so ludicrous about the truth? If you want to refute the statement "The Guru must be 'living'" by your argument "Srila Prabhupada never states this", then this is a ludicrous argument. You cannot prove that Srila Prabhupada never stated this. And even if he never stated it, that does mean that the opposite is true. > > > b) Srila Prabhupada never physically met the vast majority of his > > > disciples, yet they were initiated. > > > > This is an unproven claim. Please prove that Srila Prabhupada never > > physically met the vast majority of his disciples. > > What sort of proof would you accept? That an interactive communication was not possible. > > > Thus initiations can not require the physical presence of the Guru. > > > > This is speculation ("I have heard that Srila Prabhupada did > > such-and-such, therefore we can conclude such-and-such"). > > There is a difference between something arrived at by logical conclusion > and speculation. Please demonstrate that the above is speculation. Logical conclusion is speculation. For example Srila Prabhupada said that cow dung is pure and that the cow is an animal. The logical conclusion is that animal dung is pure. But this is just speculation. > (Remember there is lots of evidence to support the above statement. ie: > "Thus initiations can not require the physical presence of the Guru.") "Lots of evidence" is exaggerated. I have not seen a single evidence. > > > c) Neither have the very persons claiming we must accept them as > > > Gurus, simply because they are 'living', had a 'living' (physically > > > present) Guru for over 25 years. So if they have not needed a 'living > > > Guru' for more than 25 years, why do their disciples? > > > > Srila Prabhupada was physically present (an interactive communication > > was possible) when they have been initiated. > > What exactly are you trying to say here? We are speaking about initiations and for the initiation an interactive communication must be possible (the guru and the disciple must meet). So your argument that the ISKCON gurus did not have a 'living' guru since 25 years is meaningless, because they had a 'living' guru when they have been initiated. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 7, 2005 Ramakant prabhu. Pamho. AgtSP. "Ramakanta (das) wrote: > Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > > > > > 1) "The Guru must be 'living' ." > > > > > > > > a) Srila Prabhupada never states this. > > > > > > That is a ludicrous argument ("Srila Prabhupada > did not say, therefore > > > the opposite is true"). > > > > If he never stated 1) above, as mention in a) > above, then it is true. So > > what is so ludicrous about the truth? > > If you want to refute the statement "The Guru must > be 'living'" by your > argument "Srila Prabhupada never states this", then > this is a ludicrous > argument. You cannot prove that Srila Prabhupada > never stated this. If there is no recorded evidence that Srila Prabhupada made such a statement as "The Guru must be 'living'." Then this is proof in itself that Srila Prabhupada never said such a thing. Seems an obvious point to me. And even > if he never stated it, that does mean that the > opposite is true. Well the opposite to "The Guru must be 'living'" would be ""The Guru must be 'dead'" which is ludicrous. > > > > > > b) Srila Prabhupada never physically met the > vast majority of his > > > > disciples, yet they were initiated. > > > > > > This is an unproven claim. Please prove that > Srila Prabhupada never > > > physically met the vast majority of his > disciples. > > > > What sort of proof would you accept? > > That an interactive communication was not possible. > Please provide evidence from Srila Prabhupada's books that the mere possibility of interactive communication equates with physicaly meeting with Srila Prabhupada. For example there is a phone in the pub down the road. It has been there since 1965. Therefore since Srila Prabhupada also had a phone the possibility for interactive communication was there. Therefore the guys in the pub down the road met Srila Prabhupada????? > > > > > Thus initiations can not require the physical > presence of the Guru. > > > > > > This is speculation ("I have heard that Srila > Prabhupada did > > > such-and-such, therefore we can conclude > such-and-such"). > > > > There is a difference between something arrived at > by logical conclusion > > and speculation. Please demonstrate that the above > is speculation. > > Logical conclusion is speculation. For example Srila > Prabhupada said that "Similarly, God is a person. This is a logical conclusion."[TQK 21] Here we have Srila Prabhupada using a logical conclusion and you are trying to tell us that logical conclusion is speculation! So is Srila Prabhupada speculating or are we getting the gospel according to Rama Kant? > cow dung is pure and that the cow is an animal. The > logical conclusion is > that animal dung is pure. But this is just > speculation. Sorry I do not accept your so called logic here. > > (Remember there is lots of evidence to support the > above statement. ie: > > "Thus initiations can not require the physical > presence of the Guru.") > > "Lots of evidence" is exaggerated. I have not seen a > single evidence. > Neither is there any evidence that Srila Prabhupada personally met the majority of his disciples. Therefore it is a logical conclusion that the physical presence of the Guru is not required during the initiation ceremony. > > > > > c) Neither have the very persons claiming we > must accept them as > > > > Gurus, simply because they are 'living', had a > 'living' (physically > > > > present) Guru for over 25 years. So if they > have not needed a 'living > > > > Guru' for more than 25 years, why do their > disciples? > > > > > > Srila Prabhupada was physically present (an > interactive communication > > > was possible) when they have been initiated. > > > > What exactly are you trying to say here? > > We are speaking about initiations and for the > initiation an interactive > communication must be possible (the guru and the > disciple must meet). Can you give evidence to substantiate your above statements? So > your argument that the ISKCON gurus did not have a > 'living' guru since 25 > years is meaningless, because they had a 'living' > guru when they have been > initiated. > Your argument is nonsense because diksa is a process. It does not begin and end with the ceremony. "Diksa is the process by which -one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa." (Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila, 15.108, purport, A.C. Bhaktivedanta SwamiPrabhupada) Diksa is a process involving the continuous transmission of knowledge. This process begins with initiation, which itself is not defined as a ceremony, but as the serious determination on the part of the prospective disciple to begin following the orders of the Guru. This beginning, which is normally accompanied by a ceremony, is usually mistaken for being the sum and substance of diksa. Hence, since diksa does not depend on, or is fulfilled, by a one-time event such as a ceremony, there cannot be any link between diksa and the physical presence of the Guru. Otherwise the process of diksa would have had to stop for all of Srila Prabhupada's disciples in 1977 after Srila Prabhupada departed from the material world: Diksa given by transmitter of transcendental knowledge "In other words, the spiritual master awakens the sleeping living entity to his original consciousness so that he can worship Lord Visnu. This is the purpose of diksa, or initiation. Initiation means receiving the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness." (Sri Caitanya caritamrta, Madhya-lila, 9.61, purport, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada) "Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination." (Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila, 4.111, purport, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada) Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 8, 2005 According to €stric injunctions, there is no difference between ik€-guru and d…k€-guru, and generally the ik€-guru later on becomes the d…k€-guru. sb 4.12.32 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 8, 2005 > If there is no recorded evidence that Srila Prabhupada > made such a statement as "The Guru must be 'living'." > Then this is proof in itself that Srila Prabhupada > never said such a thing. Seems an obvious point to me. Well, we have learned form your texts here that what seem obvious to you doesn't say anything about the reality of Vaishnava philosophy. Here is what Prabhupada has to say: Indian lady: How does one contact the spiritual master? Through a book can you contact the spiritual master? Prabhupada: No, you have to associate. Syamasundara: "Can you associate through a book?" she asked. Prabhupada: Yes, through books, and also personal. Because when you make a spiritual master you have got personal touch. Not that in air you make a spiritual master. You make a spiritual master concrete. So as soon as you make a spiritual master, you should be inquisitive. This is fully in accordance with the Lord's statement in Bhagavad Gita: Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth. (Bg. 4.34) How are you going to inquire submissively from the guru, if he is not physically present? > Neither is there any evidence that Srila Prabhupada > personally met the majority of his disciples. > Therefore it is a logical conclusion that the physical > presence of the Guru is not required during the > initiation ceremony. You forget that no one received initiation from Prabhupada while he was not physically present on the planet to accept disciples. An important part of the initiation process is that the disciple is accepted by the spiritual master. Prabhupada personally accepted all his disciples either through letter or by being personally present before the disciple. Therefore your reasoning, as usual, is faulty, as it is bound to be from someone who rejects the traditional system of guru-parampara. Your fault is that you have showed no interest in inquiring from Prabhupada and his representatives about guru-tattva. In stead you have chosen to learn about guru-tattva from a non-Vaishnava like KK. Desai. Therefore it is no wonder that all your arguments and examples are not only ludicrous from a logical point of view, but they are also against Vaishnava siddhanta. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 8, 2005 On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 14:23 -0800, Madhusudana Dasa <july9th_77 > wrote: > > If there is no recorded evidence that Srila Prabhupada > made such a statement as "The Guru must be 'living'." > Then this is proof in itself that Srila Prabhupada > never said such a thing. Seems an obvious point to me. Although I prefer not to engage this topic because my long experience shows that the "conversation" never goes anywhere, I feel I should point out the patently absurd nature of such a statement. There is much Srila Prabhupada said that is not recorded, so the fact that there's no record that he said a particular thing is not proof that he never said it. For example, Srila Prabhupada told me that he was happy with my service but that I should always engage both my body and my mind in Krishna's service. The fact that you can't find any record of that is not proof he didn't say it. On another occasion he told my Godbrother Tarun Kanti, my wife, and me that devotees and devotional service cannot be stereotyped, that there is nothing that cannot be engaged in Krishna's service. You'll find no record of that, either; nevertheless, he said it in a room with three disciples present. The unfortunate fact is that you appear not to be as clever as KK Desai, so I wonder at your qualification to represent your party, aside from your obvious enthusiasm and perhaps a little too much time on your hands. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 9, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > If there is no recorded evidence that Srila Prabhupada made such a > statement as "The Guru must be 'living'." Then this is proof in itself > that Srila Prabhupada never said such a thing. Seems an obvious point to > me. Not everything what Srila Prabhupada said is recorded. > Please provide evidence from Srila Prabhupada's books that the mere > possibility of interactive communication equates with physicaly meeting > with Srila Prabhupada. As I know Srila Prabhupada did not explain what he meant by "meet". Currently you can "physically meet" Srila Prabhupada. You could even touch his body if you dare to dig it out. But this does not mean that you meet him, simply because an interactive communication is not possible. > For example there is a phone in the pub down the road. It has been there > since 1965. Therefore since Srila Prabhupada also had a phone the > possibility for interactive communication was there. Therefore the > guys in the pub down the road met Srila Prabhupada????? Now finally you got it! > "Similarly, God is a person. This is a logical conclusion."[TQK 21] Here > we have Srila Prabhupada using a logical conclusion and you are trying to > tell us that logical conclusion is speculation! So is Srila Prabhupada > speculating or are we getting the gospel according to Rama Kant? Why are you challenging Srila Prabhupada? HE said following, not I: "It has been described in the Bhagavata that tarko 'pratisthah. If you want to establish religious truth, you cannot establish it by your logic and argument. It is not possible because I may be a very perfect religious man, but I may not be a very good arguer; another strong man who can argue very strongly, who knows logic very nicely, he can defeat me. He can make my all conclusion null and void. So therefore, simply by argument or logical conclusion one cannot reach to the truth, to the religious truth. It is not possible. Tarko 'pratisthah srutayo vibhinnah." (Bg. 3.21-25 Lecture, New York, May 30, 1966) When Srila Prabhupada says "this is a logical conclusion", then it is not his logical conclusion but he has heard it from the acaryas. But when you say "this is a logical conclusion", then it is your or Krishnakant's logical conclusion. Do you see the difference? > > cow dung is pure and that the cow is an animal. The logical conclusion > > is that animal dung is pure. But this is just speculation. > > Sorry I do not accept your so called logic here. I don't accept either the logical conclusion that animal dung is pure. > Neither is there any evidence that Srila Prabhupada personally met the > majority of his disciples. You should learn the truth by hearing from the spiritual master, not by observing his activities. Srila Prabhupada several times said, "vaisnavera kriya mudra vijneha na bujhaya: even a very intelligent man cannot understand the activities of a pure Vaisnava". > Therefore it is a logical conclusion that the physical presence of the > Guru is not required during the initiation ceremony. Now you are defeating a straw man argument. I never claimed that at the initiation ceremony the guru must be present. > > We are speaking about initiations and for the initiation an interactive > > communication must be possible (the guru and the disciple must meet). > > Can you give evidence to substantiate your above statements? "Therefore, in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa by Sanatana Gosvami it is directed that the spiritual master and the disciple MUST MEET together at least for one year so that the disciple may also understand that 'Here is a person whom I can accept as my guru,' and the guru also can see that 'Here is a person who is fit for becoming my disciple.'" (SB 1.16.25, Hawaii, January 21, 1974) "The best thing will be that if you can come here for some days, say, at least for a fortnight, you can remain here with us in the temple here, and talk with me in details before you become my disciple. Actually, I shall be very glad to accept an educated and intelligent disciple like you, but first of all we MUST MEET and you should know whether you can accept me as your Spiritual Master, or I can accept you as my disciple. This is PRELIMINARY NECESSITY. I am therefore requesting you to come here at least for a fortnight, and let us understand one another." (Letter to Vinode Patel, Montreal, 6 July, 1968) "Therefore the bona fide spiritual master who happens to MEET the sincere devotee should be accepted as the most confidential and beloved representative of the Lord." (SB 2.9.7 Purport) ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 9, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > Your argument is nonsense because diksa is a process. > It does not begin and end with the ceremony. You present yourself as someone who has knowledge about initiation. So can you please answer following questions to prove that you are not just quoting Srila Prabhupada like a parrot without having understood what you are quoting: How long does this initiation process take? A few minutes or a few years? >From when on during that process is one considered an "initiated disciple"? Is that process finished at some point in time? What does "first initiation" and "second initiation" mean in this regard? ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 9, 2005 "Babhru (das) wrote: > On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 14:23 -0800, Madhusudana Dasa > <july9th_77 > > wrote: > > > > If there is no recorded evidence that Srila > Prabhupada > > made such a statement as "The Guru must be > 'living'." > > Then this is proof in itself that Srila Prabhupada > > never said such a thing. Seems an obvious point to > me. > > > Although I prefer not to engage this topic because > my long experience shows > that the "conversation" never goes anywhere, I feel > I should point out the > patently absurd nature of such a statement. There is > much Srila Prabhupada > said that is not recorded, so the fact that there's > no record that he said a > particular thing is not proof that he never said it. This is also an obvious point. > For example, Srila > Prabhupada told me that he was happy with my service > but that I should > always engage both my body and my mind in Krishna's > service. The fact that > you can't find any record of that is not proof he > didn't say it. On another > occasion he told my Godbrother Tarun Kanti, my wife, > and me that devotees > and devotional service cannot be stereotyped, that > there is nothing that > cannot be engaged in Krishna's service. You'll find > no record of that, > either; nevertheless, he said it in a room with > three disciples present. > > The unfortunate fact is that you appear not to be as > clever as KK Desai, This is also an obvious point. >so > I wonder at your qualification to represent your > party, I do not represent any party as such. I was invited to this forum by Ramakant. Yadhuraja is the IRM representative. aside from your > obvious enthusiasm and perhaps a little too much > time on your hands. > You also seem to have time to waste by repeatedly stating the obvious. Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com Start your day with - Make it your home page! http://www./r/hs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 9, 2005 Ramakant prabhu. Pamho. AgtSP. Ramakanta wrote: > > Please provide evidence from Srila Prabhupada's > books that the mere > > possibility of interactive communication equates > with physicaly meeting > > with Srila Prabhupada. > > As I know Srila Prabhupada did not explain what he > meant by "meet". However he did use the word a lot and by looking in the vedabase we can find a variety of meanings for the word. So YOUR singular interpretation of the word meet, as ONLY meaning "interactive communication". Is quite frankly ludicrous. I'm sure that you are well aware what ludicrous means? > > > "Similarly, God is a person. This is a logical > conclusion."[TQK 21] Here > > we have Srila Prabhupada using a logical > conclusion and you are trying to > > tell us that logical conclusion is speculation! So > is Srila Prabhupada > > speculating or are we getting the gospel according > to Rama Kant? > > Why are you challenging Srila Prabhupada? HE said > following, not I: > > "It has been described in the Bhagavata that tarko > 'pratisthah. If you want > to establish religious truth, you cannot establish > it by your logic and > argument. It is not possible because I may be a very > perfect religious man, > but I may not be a very good arguer; another strong > man who can argue very > strongly, who knows logic very nicely, he can defeat > me. He can make my all > conclusion null and void. So therefore, simply by > argument or logical > conclusion one cannot reach to the truth, to the > religious truth. It is not > possible. Tarko 'pratisthah srutayo vibhinnah." (Bg. > 3.21-25 Lecture, New > York, May 30, 1966) > > When Srila Prabhupada says "this is a logical > conclusion", then it is not > his logical conclusion but he has heard it from the > acaryas. This is speculation and just more of the same gospel according to Ramakant. How you can have the audacity to make such a speculative claim as this is beyond belief. How can you prove such a statement? Of course there maybe instances when YOUR statement is true. However there is NO shastric injunction known which states that the acharya ONLY reaches logical conclusions which he has heard from the acharya's. That's why acharya's manifest and are quite capable of reaching there own logical conclusions according to circumstances. Circumstances which may not have been present to previous acharyas. "Srimad Viraraghava Acarya, an acarya in the disciplic succession of the Ramanuja-sampradaya, has remarked in his commentary that candalas, or conditioned souls who are born in lower than sudra families, can also be initiated according to circumstances. The formalities may be slightly changed here and there to make them Vaisnavas." (S.B. 4.8.54 purport ) >But when you > say "this is a logical conclusion", then it is your > or Krishnakant's logical > conclusion. Do you see the difference? Again this is YOUR perception which also subject to the 4 defects, as are mine. The issue here should be is it true or NOT. > > Neither is there any evidence that Srila > Prabhupada personally met the > > majority of his disciples. > > You should learn the truth by hearing from the > spiritual master, not by > observing his activities. This is more nonsense. The acharya ALSO teaches by example, therefore we DO observe his activities. As disciples we relish his every action. ITV have sold 3,000 sets of his DVD's so it seems I'm not the only person who relishes observing Srila Prabhupada's activities. Srila Prabhupada several > times said, "vaisnavera > kriya mudra vijneha na bujhaya: even a very > intelligent man cannot > understand the activities of a pure Vaisnava". > yes > > > Therefore it is a logical conclusion that the > physical presence of the > > Guru is not required during the initiation > ceremony. > > Now you are defeating a straw man argument. I never > claimed that at the > initiation ceremony the guru must be present. > > > > > We are speaking about initiations and for the > initiation an interactive > > > communication must be possible (the guru and the > disciple must meet). > > > > Can you give evidence to substantiate your above > statements? > > "Therefore, in the Hari-bhakti-vilasa by Sanatana > Gosvami it is directed > that the spiritual master and the disciple MUST MEET > together at least for > one year so that the disciple may also understand > that 'Here is a person > whom I can accept as my guru,' and the guru also can > see that 'Here is a > person who is fit for becoming my disciple.'" (SB > 1.16.25, Hawaii, January > 21, 1974) This meeting was also done by his representatives. > "The best thing will be that if you can come here > for some days, say, at > least for a fortnight, you can remain here with us > in the temple here, and > talk with me in details before you become my > disciple. Actually, I shall be > very glad to accept an educated and intelligent > disciple like you, but first > of all we MUST MEET and you should know whether you > can accept me as your > Spiritual Master, or I can accept you as my > disciple. This is PRELIMINARY > NECESSITY. I am therefore requesting you to come > here at least for a > fortnight, and let us understand one another." > (Letter to Vinode Patel, > Montreal, 6 July, 1968) This is funny, as you are quoting a personal letter here. Recently you were dismissing letters when I was quoting them, but when it suits your purpose you are quite happy to quote them! Note this was 1968. When the movement was bigger he delegated this interaction to his reps. > > "Therefore the bona fide spiritual master who > happens to MEET the sincere > devotee should be accepted as the most confidential > and beloved > representative of the Lord." (SB 2.9.7 Purport) However you argue - the fact remains that there NO evidence that Srila Prabhupada personally met the majority of his disciples. Doing so is just an exercise in futility. Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 9, 2005 Ramakant prabhu. Pamho. AgtSP. Ramakanta wrote: > Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > > Your argument is nonsense because diksa is a > process. > > It does not begin and end with the ceremony. > > You present yourself as someone who has knowledge > about initiation. So can > you please answer following questions to prove that > you are not just quoting > Srila Prabhupada like a parrot without having > understood what you are > quoting: > > How long does this initiation process take? A few > minutes or a few years? You tell me - how long is a piece of string? Srila Prabhupada explains the real meaning of initiation (diksa) Diksa Given by Transmitter of Transcendental Knowledge "In other words, the spiritual master awakens the sleeping living entity to his original consciousness so that he can worship Lord Visnu. This is the purpose of diksa, or initiation. Initiation means receiving the pure knowledge of spiritual consciousness." (Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya, 9.61, purport) "Diksa is the process by which one can awaken his transcendental knowledge and vanquish all reactions caused by sinful activity. A person expert in the study of the revealed scriptures knows this process as diksa." (Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya, 15.108, purport) Initiation is the Beginning of Following the Process of Krishna Consciousness It is Not A Ceremony "So anyway, from 1922 to 1933 practically I was not initiated, but I got the impression of preaching Caitanya Mahaprabhu's cult. That I was thinking. And that was the initiation by my Guru Maharaja." (Srila Prabhupada lecture, 10/12/76, Hyderabad) "Initiation is a formality. First of all you have to decide whether you will abide by the rules and regulations and become Krsna conscious. That is your consideration. You have to decide for yourself whether you are going to take this Krsna consciousness seriously. That is your decision. Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real initiation. If you have understood this Krsna philosophy and if you have decided that you will take Krsna consciousness seriously and preach the philosophy to others, that is your initiation. My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination. That is initiation. (Srila Prabhupada conversation, 'The Search for the Divine', Back to Godhead, # 49) "...disciplic succession does not always mean that one has to be initiated officially. Disciplic succession means to accept the disciplic conclusion." (Srila Prabhupada letter to Dinesh, 31/10/69) "The chanting of Hare Krsna is our main business, that is real initiation. And as you are all following my instruction, in that matter, the initiator is already there." (Srila Prabhupada letter to Tamal Krsna, 19/8/68) > From when on during that process is one considered > an "initiated disciple"? In the absolute sense - when the process is finished. Although one may be known as "initiated disciple" during the procedural stages. Just as an apple is known as an apple during all its differing stages of developement. > Is that process finished at some point in time? "Diksa actually means initiating a disciple with transcendental knowledge by which he becomes freed from all material contamination." (Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya, 4.111, purport) When one is freed from material contamination. > What does "first initiation" and "second initiation" > mean in this regard? Part of the process. Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 10, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > However he did use the word a lot and by looking in the vedabase we can > find a variety of meanings for the word. So YOUR singular interpretation > of the word meet, as ONLY meaning "interactive communication". Is quite > frankly ludicrous. It's just my definition of "meet" so that you know what I mean when I say "meet". If you find it ludicrous, don't use that definition yourself. > > When Srila Prabhupada says "this is a logical conclusion", then it is > > not his logical conclusion but he has heard it from the acaryas. > > This is speculation and just more of the same gospel according to > Ramakant. I would call it sraddha, faith in Srila Prabhupada. > The acharya ALSO teaches by example, therefore we DO observe his > activities. When Srila Prabhupada quoting Srila Sanatana Gosvami says that the guru and the disciple must meet, then the guru and the disciple must meet, bas. Independent on what you observe through your inperfect senses. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 10, 2005 > You tell me - how long is a piece of string? > > Srila Prabhupada explains the real meaning of > initiation (diksa) > > Diksa Given by Transmitter of Transcendental Knowledge Indian lady: How does one contact the spiritual master? Through a book can you contact the spiritual master? Prabhupada: No, you have to associate. Syamasundara: "Can you associate through a book?" she asked. Prabhupada: Yes, through books, and also personal. Because when you make a spiritual master you have got personal touch. Not that in air you make a spiritual master. You make a spiritual master concrete. So as soon as you make a spiritual master, you should be inquisitive. London, September 23, 1969 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 11, 2005 "If you are incapable of raising yourself to the standard of becoming spiritual master, that is not your spiritual master's fault, that is your fault. He wants, just like Caitanya Mahaprabhu said, amara ajnaya guru hana, by My order, every one of you become a guru. If one cannot carry out the order of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, then how he can become a guru? The first qualification is that he must be able to carry out the order of Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Then he becomes guru. So that carrying out the order of Caitanya Mahaprabhu depends on one's personal capacity. Amara ajnaya guru hana." June 21, 1972, Los Angeles Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 15, 2005 Ramakant prabhu Please accept my humble obeisance. All glories to Srila Prabhupada Ramakanta wrote: > Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > > > How long does this initiation process take? A > few minutes or a few > > > years? > > > > You tell me - how long is a piece of string? > > I noted that you did not answer my question. Whoo! You are a so observant. > > > From when on during that process is one > considered an "initiated > > > disciple"? > > > > In the absolute sense - when the process is > finished. Although one may be > > known as "initiated disciple" during the > procedural stages. Just as an > > apple is known as an apple during all its > differing stages of > > developement. > > Please confirm this statement. What would you except as confirmation? Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 15, 2005 Rama Kant Prabhu. Please accept my most humble obeisances. All glories to his divine grace Srila Prabhupada. Ramakanta (das) wrote: > When Srila Prabhupada quoting Srila Sanatana Gosvami > says that the guru and > the disciple must meet, then the guru and the > disciple must meet, bas. > Independent on what you observe through your > inperfect senses. I agree, however this meeting was also done through his representatives. If you disagree with the above statement, please provide evidence to the contrary. Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com Start your day with - Make it your home page! http://www./r/hs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 15, 2005 28) "On three occasions Srila Prabhupada states that you need a physical guru, and yet your whole position rests on the idea that you do not. "Therefore, as soon as we become a little inclined towards Krsna, then from within our heart he gives us favourable instruction so that we can gradually make progress, gradually. Krsna is the first spiritual master, and when we become more interested then we have to go to a physical spiritual master." (SP Bg. Lecture, 14/8/66, New York ) "Because Krsna is situated in everyone's heart. Actually, he is the spiritual master, Caitya-Guru. So in order to help us, he comes out as physical spiritual master." (SP S.B. Lecture, 28/5/74, Rome ) "Therefore God is called Caitya-Guru, the spiritual master within the heart. And the physical spiritual master is God's mercy [...] He will help you from within and without, without in the physical form of the spiritual master, and within as the spiritual master within the heart." (SP Room conversation, 23/5/74 ) Srila Prabhupada used the term physical guru when explaining that in the conditioned stage we cannot rely purely on the Caitya-Guru or Supersoul for guidance. It is imperative that we surrender to the external manifestation of the Supersoul. This is the diksa Guru. Such a Spiritual Master, who is considered a resident of the spiritual world, and an intimate associate of Lord Krsna, makes his physical appearance just to guide the fallen conditioned souls. Often such a Spiritual Master will write physical books; he will give lectures which can be heard with physical ears and be recorded on physical tape machines; he may leave physical murtis and even a physical GBC to continue managing everything once he has physically departed. However what Srila Prabhupada never taught was that this physical guru must also be physically present in order to act as guru. As we have pointed out, were this the case, then currently no-one could be considered his disciple. If the guru must always be physically present in order for transcendental knowledge to be imparted, then once Srila Prabhupada left the planet all his disciples should have taken 're-initiation'. Furthermore thousands of Srila Prabhupada's disciples were initiated having had no contact with the physical body of Srila Prabhupada. Yet it is accepted that they approached, enquired from, surrendered to, served and took initiation from the physical spiritual master. No one is arguing that their initiations were null and void by dint of the above three quotes. [The Final Order by Krishna Kant] --- "Tripada (das) (Split - HR)" <Tripada (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > "Krsna is the first spiritual master, > and when > we become more interested, then we > have to go to > a physical spiritual master. That is > enjoined in > the next verse. Tad viddhi pranipatena > pariprasnena sevaya, upadeksyanti te > jnanam > jnaninas tattva- darsinah. Now, Krsna > advises > that "If you want to know that > transcendental > science, then you just try to approach > somebody." Pranipatena. Pranipatena, > pariprasnena and sevaya. What is > pranipata? > Pranipata means surrender. Surrender. > You must > select a person where you can > surrender yourself > because nobody likes to surrender to > anyone. > > (Srila Prabhupada lecture, August 14th > 1966) > > ----------------------- > To from this mailing list, send an email > to: > Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net > Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 15, 2005 Evidence used to support an alternative to the ritvik system falls into three basic categories : 1. Srila Prabhupada's frequent call for everyone to become guru, often made in conjunction with the 'amara ajnaya guru hana' verse from the Caitanya-Caritamrta. 2. The half dozen or so personal letters where Srila Prabhupada mentions his disciples acting as diksa guru after his departure. 3. Other statements in Srila Prabhupada's books and lectures where the principle of disciples going on to be diksa guru are mentioned. Looking first at category 1) : The instruction for everyone to become guru is found in the following verse in the Caitanya-Caritamrta, which was often quoted by Srila Prabhupada: "Instruct everyone to follow the orders of Sri Krsna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam. In this way become a spiritual master and try to liberate everyone in this land." (C.c. Madhya, 7.128) However, the type of guru, which Lord Caitanya is encouraging everyone to become, is clearly established in the detailed purports following this verse: "That is, one should stay at home, chant the Hare Krsna mantra and preach the instructions of Krsna as they are given in Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam." (C.c. Madhya, 7.128, purport) "One may remain a householder, medical practitioner, an engineer or whatever. It doesn't matter. One only has to follow the instruction of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, chant the Hare Krsna maha-mantra and instruct relatives and friends in the teachings of Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam [...] It is best not to accept any disciples." (C.c. Madhya, 7.130, purport) We can see that these instructions do not demand that the gurus in question first attain any particular level of realisation before they act. The request is immediate. From this it is clear everyone is simply encouraged to preach what they may know, and in so doing become siksa, or instructing, gurus. This is further clarified by the stipulation for the siksa guru to remain in that position, and not then go on to become a diksa guru: "It is best not to accept any disciples." (C.c. Madhya, 7.130, purport) To accept disciples is the main business of a diksa guru, whereas a siksa guru simply needs to carry on his duties and preach Krsna Consciousness as best he can. It is clear from Srila Prabhupada's purports that in the above verse Lord Caitanya is actually authorising siksa gurus, not diksa gurus. This is also made abundantly clear in the many other references where Srila Prabhupada encourages everyone to become guru: "yare dekha, tare kaha, krsna-upadesa. You haven't got to manufacture anything. What Krsna has already said, you repeat. Finish. Don't make addition, adulteration. Then you become guru [...] I may be fool, rascal [...] So we have to follow this path, that you become guru, deliver your neighbourhood men, associates, but speak the authoritative words of Krsna. Then it will act [...] Anyone can do. A child can do." (SP Evening darsan, 11/5/77, Hrsikesh) "Because people are in darkness, we require many millions of gurus to enlighten them. Therefore Caitanya Mahaprabhu's mission is, [...] He said that "Everyone of you become guru." (SP Lecture, 21/5/76, Honolulu) "You simply say [...] "Just always think of Me", Krsna said, "And just become My devotee. Just worship Me and offer obeisances." Kindly do these things." So if you can induce one person to do these things, you become guru. Is there any difficulty?" (SP Conversation, 2/8/76, New Mayapur) "Real guru is he who instructs what Krsna has said....You have simply to say, 'This is this.' That's all. Is it very difficult task?" (SP Lecture, 21/5/76, Honolulu) "...'But I have no qualification. How can I become guru ?' There is no need of qualification...Whomever you meet, you simply instruct what Krsna has said. That's all. You become guru." (SP Lecture, 21/5/76, Honolulu) (Astonishingly, some devotees have used such quotes as those above as a justification for 'minimally qualified diksa gurus'*(1), an entity never once mentioned in any of Srila Prabhupada's books, letters, lectures or conversations). An example of a guru who has no qualification other than repeating what he has heard, could be found on any bhakta induction course in ISKCON. It is perfectly clear therefore that the above are actually invitations to become instructing spiritual masters, siksa gurus. We know this since Srila Prabhupada has already explained for us in his books the far more stringent requirements for becoming a diksa guru: "When one has attained the topmost position of maha-bhagavata, he is to be accepted as a guru and worshipped exactly like Hari, the Personality of Godhead. Only such a person is eligible to occupy the post of a guru." (C.c. Madhya, 24.330, purport) "One should take initiation from a bona fide spiritual master coming in the disciplic succession, who is authorised by his predecessor spiritual master. This is called diksa -vidhana." (S.B. 4.8.54, purport) As it has been shown Srila Prabhupada stated that the order to become an initiating guru has to be received specifically from one's own guru. The general instruction from Lord Caitanya had been present for 500 years. It is obvious then that Srila Prabhupada did not consider 'amara ajnaya guru hana' to refer specifically to diksa, otherwise why would we need yet another specific order from our immediate acarya? This general instruction from Lord Caitanya must be referring to siksa not diksa guru. Diksa guru is the exception, not the rule. Whereas Srila Prabhupada envisaged millions of siksa gurus, comprising of men, women and children. --- "Tripada (das) (Split - HR)" <Tripada (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > "If you are incapable of raising yourself to the > standard of becoming spiritual master, > that is > not your spiritual master's fault, > that is your > fault. He wants, just like Caitanya > Mahaprabhu > said, amara ajnaya guru hana, by My > order, every > one of you become a guru. If one > cannot carry > out the order of Caitanya Mahaprabhu, > then how > he can become a guru? The first > qualification is > that he must be able to carry out the > order of > Caitanya Mahaprabhu. Then he becomes > guru. So > that carrying out the order of > Caitanya > Mahaprabhu depends on one's personal > capacity. > Amara ajnaya guru hana." > > June 21, 1972, Los Angeles > > ----------------------- > To from this mailing list, send an email > to: > Initiations.in.ISKCON-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net > Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted November 15, 2005 Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > > > From when on during that process is one considered an "initiated > > > > disciple"? > > > > > > In the absolute sense - when the process is finished. Although one may > > > be known as "initiated disciple" during the procedural stages. Just as > > > an apple is known as an apple during all its differing stages of > > > developement. > > > > Please confirm this statement. > > What would you accept as confirmation? A statement by Srila Prabhupada. What else? > > When Srila Prabhupada quoting Srila Sanatana Gosvami says that the guru > > and the disciple must meet, then the guru and the disciple must meet, > > bas. Independent on what you observe through your imperfect senses. > > I agree, however this meeting was also done through his representatives. > If you disagree with the above statement, please provide evidence to the > contrary. This is the logical fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof". You commit this fallacy if you make a claim that needs justification, then demand that the opponent justify the opposite of the claim. You claim that this meeting was also done through his representatives, and then you ask me to prove to opposite. > Yes but the burden of proof is on you. To prove that the system was to be > stopped. Without any direct evidence from Srila Prabhupada to stop the > system. Then there is absolutely no justification for stopping the system. I have already provided several proofs, all still unrefuted. > Well not quite correct since of all my statements are from Srila > Prabhupada. Sorry, you wrote "So this is our argument! Since Srila Prabhupada never gave any instruction on stopping the ritvik system, then why was it stopped?" "Our argument" does not mean "Srila Prabhupada's statement". > > Since Srila Prabhupada never gave any instruction on continuing the > > ritvik system, then why should it be continued? > > This is simply nonsense. Childish prattle. Finally you got it! Yes, statements that begin with "Srila Prabhupada did not say, therefore ..." (or similar) are simply nonsense, childish prattle. ys Ramakanta dasa Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
