London, 04.12.2009 at 5:59pm
Hare Krishna.
Yes, there are many weak points in the “” arguement.
Basing the arguement on the letter to Pusta Krishna Prabhu is also very weak.
If you read the letter carefully without any assumptions you will find that the letter does not refer the disciple to be able to “initiate” but only to accept disciples. For the disciple to be able to accept initiated disciples in the same way as Srila Prabhupada would mean the disciple being on the same level of realisation as Srila Prabhupada.As we all know now that Srila Prabhupadas initiated disciples have not been able to succeed Him in realisation then the assumption from this letter that they can “initiate disciples” in the same way as Srila Prabhupada did is null and void.
Read the letter carefully and all it says is the disciple may accept disciples, not “initiate disciples”, it’s a massive difference.
Refering to the letter again and the concept of accepting disciples as in disciplining younger devotees from a more senior devotee we can find exactly the same concept in NOI, Text 5, last paragraph. When refering to disciples it is not necessarily meaning initiating – in Text 5 of Nectar of Instruction, Srila Prabhupada explains that the 2nd and 3rd class Vaisnavas can accept disciples (not initiate) but they are unable to advance due to the insufficient guidance. Initiation is not related to insufficient anything so initiation and initiating as in diksa is the domain of the 1st class Vaisnava.
Text 5 and this letter to Pusta Krishna Prabhu are philosophically linked and the coherent message is that only 1st class Vaisnavas can initiate and 2nd and 3rd class Vaisnavas can accept disciples but not in the same way as 1st class Vaisnavas, there is a difference.
If the GBC have based their idea that they can initiate based on this evidence then it is flawed and they have misunderstood plain English words. Their idea tobe able to initiate is based on personal ambition and this has clouded their understanding of simple English words. They have assumed that accepting disciples means initiating and clearly it does not axiomatically mean that of course the GBC would also have to have qualified Vaisnavas and authentic authorised Vaisnavas that are directly empowered to initiate.
The physically present theory is also not born out of evidence from the disciplic succession whatsoever. There is no evidence for this at all, in most cases between links there are huge gaps where there may not be a diksa guru present. And in a lecture in Honolulu, I think in 1975, Srila Prabhupada stated categorically that sometimes there is not a diksa guru present always and so we follow the senior Vaisnavas, the shiksa guru. Initiation does not terminate because of lack of physical body and physical body is not a qualification to be a diksa guru. I have a physical body and I can give a Bhagavatam class and I can hand out names and threads, no problem but that does not make me a diksa guru. They (GBC) have misconstrued and mis-applied the written word.
Speak Your Mind