First I want to thank you Vera for treating me as a person rather than as some "crazy blind follower" I appreciate the respect as I am sure some of the other people reading this are probably in the same situation I am in.
I completely agree with you that I should use my critical thinking and reasoning rather than accepting anything blindly either from Jagad Guru or from yourself or anybody else. So I would greatly appreciate it f you can provide me with some evidence of your claim that;
Quote
Vera City
“There is only one initiating guru in the parampara at a time, which is passed on by the previous acharya.”Could you please tell me where you got this from? I have heard some people teach this; however the reality seems to contradict it.
For example, Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati (the guru of Bhaktivedanta Swami) had many disciples and a good number of them (including Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami) initiated disciples. As you may know, Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami was not appointed as “the next acharya,” yet Bhaktivedanta Swami obviously initiated many disciples into the parampara represented by Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati. You were saying that
“there is only one initiating guru in the parampara at a time,” so how do you explain that Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad, who was not appointed by Bhaktisiddhanta, and many other disciples of Bhaktisiddhanta, (like Sridhara Maharaja, Puri Maharaja, etc.,) all initiated many disciples?
Also connected to this you say;
Quote
Vera City
“ACB did not select one disciple to continue the line before his death, this is the tradition that Butler broke when he took the role for himself”From everything I have heard Jagad Guru say or read, I have never come across anything where he claims he is "the one" who is the exclusive Guru in the disciplic line. Everything I have read of Jagad Guru’s and what I have heard from his disciples is that it is the responsibility of every disciple of a bona fide spiritual master to do their best to pass on the teachings they have received and understood/realized. The point being is that every sincere, self realized disciple will naturally out of compassion try to share their understanding with others, i.e. act as guru.
Lastly, you say that the Haribol Special was;
“artfully written to look like he was the humble and self-evident/self-effulgent next in line.”After reading your statement I went to the Haribol Special again and not only is there nothing in there where he claims to be "the next in line" but he repeatedly makes it clear that there is no one person who is “next in line” and that if anyone who is looking for a spiritual master wants to know who God’s representative is that they need to check with scripture and with the Lord in the heart.
Haribol Special pg 8“Krishna is within everyone’s heart as the Paramatama and He will give guidance to those who want guidance.
If a person is sincere, then by Krishna’s grace that person gets a guru.”Haribol Special pg 5“Jagad Guru: I am not speaking out against any particular person. I am speaking out against the idea of appointed acharyas. I do not care to criticize my god brothers because if they are trying to give Krishna to others, that is each of their own individual business. This is for Krishna to judge, not me. That will be seen by the fruits of what they are doing...
‘So actually, some of these people may be gurus, but my point is this: if they are gurus, then they are gurus because they are lovers of Krishna and because they have heard purely from their spiritual master. They are not gurus because of some appointment or diploma. They may be so-called “appointed acharyas” and they may not be real acharyas, or they may be so-called “appointed acharyas” and they may be real acharyas. This means that appointment has nothing to do with it; it is based entirely on one’s qualification, one’s purity. Whether or not they are gurus is to be seen by the fruits of their lives...”Thank you again Vera for your time and consideration of my questions, I look forward to your responses