A careful study of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions clearly shows he removed himself entirely from the initiation process. He received disciples he didn’t know, had never met, and he never said he felt they were forced onto him. Those initiations were recognised as bonafide, those devotees accepted as his duly initiated disciples.
Making up little scenarios doesn’t disprove the system Srila Prabhupada authorised.
Well first since the time this was made, the GBC has stopped all initiations until they can figure it out, so these ladies may be singing from a different songbook if the GBC makes yet another change to their system.
They insist they need a guru to sort all their anhartas for them, but also say they’ve seen that disciples whose gurus fall away often remain, and can be even stronger. But wait, they don’t have a guru? So these statements seem contradictory.
Maybe we can be grown ups and manage our own spiritual lives. I’ve seen hundreds of devotees who only saw their guru once or twice a year, or as they say, the guru fell away, but the devotees sorted their own crap out, they followed Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, and Krishna helped them. The process works, but it’s up to us. The guru can’t do it for you. And it’s not that complicated. Don’t overthink it and conjure up stuff you then need to run to guru with. Mental gymnastics.
Srila Prabhupada had thousands of disciples and it was impossible for him to get to know them all and personally counsel them with all their anarthas. He gave the philosophy and practices and had faith that if his disciples remained loyal to his teachings, they would succeed. Possibly the majority didn’t have any personal association with their spiritual master, some never spoke to him, never asked a single question, and some never saw him at all.
The model Srila Prabhupada showed wherein his disciples didn’t have a personal relationship but went on to be steady practitioners for decades, do wonderful preaching and other services, (and some even became gurus) is in direct conflict with what these young devotees are preaching, what they’ve been taught to think.
They repeat with such confidence that Srila Prabhupada is the siksha, but where does he ever say that’s what his future status in his Movement will be?
If we can’t make any advancement without a living guru, then how did the Iskcon guru make any advancement since he has not had a living guru for the last 49 years! That’s most of their spiritual lives without a guru to get rid of their anarthas for them.
Based on logic and Prabhupada’s example, I would have to say I’m sorry, but I don’t think these devotees can ‘tell us’ this is an absolute truth.
If you have a living guru and that works for you, all power to you. Interestingly, one of the concerns that seems to have promoted the initiation freeze is stated that the living gurus are actually getting too involved in their disciples lives. Maybe laying all our anhartas before guru is not what the guru/disciple relationship is even meant to be?
Login
Share videos, music and pictures, follow friends and keep track of what you enjoy!
A careful study of Srila Prabhupada’s instructions clearly shows he removed himself entirely from the initiation process. He received disciples he didn’t know, had never met, and he never said he felt they were forced onto him. Those initiations were recognised as bonafide, those devotees accepted as his duly initiated disciples.
Making up little scenarios doesn’t disprove the system Srila Prabhupada authorised.
They insist they need a guru to sort all their anhartas for them, but also say they’ve seen that disciples whose gurus fall away often remain, and can be even stronger. But wait, they don’t have a guru? So these statements seem contradictory.
Maybe we can be grown ups and manage our own spiritual lives. I’ve seen hundreds of devotees who only saw their guru once or twice a year, or as they say, the guru fell away, but the devotees sorted their own crap out, they followed Srila Prabhupada’s teachings, and Krishna helped them. The process works, but it’s up to us. The guru can’t do it for you. And it’s not that complicated. Don’t overthink it and conjure up stuff you then need to run to guru with. Mental gymnastics.
Srila Prabhupada had thousands of disciples and it was impossible for him to get to know them all and personally counsel them with all their anarthas. He gave the philosophy and practices and had faith that if his disciples remained loyal to his teachings, they would succeed. Possibly the majority didn’t have any personal association with their spiritual master, some never spoke to him, never asked a single question, and some never saw him at all.
The model Srila Prabhupada showed wherein his disciples didn’t have a personal relationship but went on to be steady practitioners for decades, do wonderful preaching and other services, (and some even became gurus) is in direct conflict with what these young devotees are preaching, what they’ve been taught to think.
They repeat with such confidence that Srila Prabhupada is the siksha, but where does he ever say that’s what his future status in his Movement will be?
If we can’t make any advancement without a living guru, then how did the Iskcon guru make any advancement since he has not had a living guru for the last 49 years! That’s most of their spiritual lives without a guru to get rid of their anarthas for them.
Based on logic and Prabhupada’s example, I would have to say I’m sorry, but I don’t think these devotees can ‘tell us’ this is an absolute truth.
If you have a living guru and that works for you, all power to you. Interestingly, one of the concerns that seems to have promoted the initiation freeze is stated that the living gurus are actually getting too involved in their disciples lives. Maybe laying all our anhartas before guru is not what the guru/disciple relationship is even meant to be?