Guest guest Posted September 11, 2005 Report Share Posted September 11, 2005 Ramakanta prabhu. Pamho. AgtSP. --- "Ramakanta (das) HKS (PAMHO.NET SysOp) (Zurich - CH)" <Ramakanta.HKS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote: > Dear Madhusudana Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP! > > > > "I suggest you study Srila Prabhupada's words > under the guidance of a > > > spiritual master." > > > > Srila Prabhupada is a spiritual master. His words > are the words of a > > spiritual master. So in fact what you ARE saying > is that ANOTHER > > spiritual master is required to give guidance on > how to understand Srila > > Prabhupada words. > > If you replace "what you ARE saying" with "what I > (Madhusudana) understood", > then I agree with your statement. Note that (besides > Krishna) I am the only > person who can authoritatively say if you correctly > understood me. Why? Once again you make no sense. If someone is talking non-sense, one doesn't have to be Krishna to authoritively know that. > > Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur is a > spiritual master. His words are > the words of a spiritual master. But Srila > Prabhupada told his disciples, > that they cannot learn from Bhaktisiddhanta > Sarasvati directly, only from > Srila Prabhupada. > > If you are a disciple of Srila Prabhupada, then you > should learn the > spiritual science under his guidance. "Under his > guidance" means "following > his instructions". One of Srila Prabhupada's > instruction is that you must > always compare the words of the guru with sadhu and > sastra. If the guru is bona-fide and you claim that Srila Prabhupada is. Then everything he states will also be bona-fide, is it not? When did Srila Prabhupada EVER instruct his disciples to check if anything he had ever said or written was bona-fide? What I am looking for is something like, "I have just giving a lecture in which I have stated that Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, now I want all my disciples to research this to check if I made a mistake." > You did not do > this when your read the July 9th letter, How do you know this? Such audacity to write such speculative non-sense? >therefore > you did not follow Srila > Prabhupada's instruction, and therefore you did not > learn under his > guidance. Sorry dude, the only one who hasn't learned anything is the guy who wrote this missive. >Therefore I suggested that you study Srila > Prabhupada's words > under the guidance of a spiritual master (which is > Srila Prabhupada if you > are a Prabhupada disciple). > Where does Srila Prabhupada state that, "If you are NOT my disciple you will need a spiritual master other than me, to guide you, as to what my words actually mean." If Srila Prabhupada's words are not understandable, unless of course one is a Prabhupada disciple, then what is the point of mass book distribution of Srila Prabhupada's books? Surely it would make more sense to distribute the books of the spiritual master who can guide us in what Srila Prabhupada's books actually say. Rather than Srila Prabhupada's books. More non-sense, when are you going to produce some arguments of a more sane basis? > If you have any further questions, don't hesitate to > ask them. > > > This quote does NOT say that another spiritual > master is required to > > understand the words of the spiritual master Srila > Prabhupada. > > That is correct. You must not jump to another > spiritual master unless so > instructed by your spiritual master. (This is > confirmed for example in the > lecture to SB 1.15.30). > > > > Who is your spiritual master? > > > > Srila Prabhupada. > > If you are an initiated disciple of Srila > Prabhupada, then following is > true: There was an initiation ceremony, the person > who performed the > initiation ceremony declared that you are a disciple > of Srila Prabhupada, > and you are included in Srila Prabhupada's book of > Initiated Disciples. > > Is it like that in your case? > What YOU are trying to say above is that unless I've had the fire ceremony and my name is in Srila Prabhupada's initiated disciples book - then I am NOT an initiated disciple of Srila Prabhupada. Correct? However this IS what Srila Prabhupada says .... "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. (Lecture, Hyderabad, 10/12/76) The chanting Hare Krishna is our main business, that is real initiation. And as you are all following my instruction, in that matter, the initiator is already there. (Letter to Tamal Krishna, 19/8/68) Well, initiation or no initiation, first thing is knowledge. (break) ...knowledge. Initiation is formality. Just like you go to a school for knowledge, and admission is formality. That is not very important thing. (Interview, 16/10/76, Chandigarh) Initiation is a formality. If you are serious, that is real initiation. My touch is simply a formality. It is your determination, that is initiation. (BTG, Search for the Divine) " Diksa is a process NOT a ceremony. > > "Yes, I am the spiritual master of this > institution, and all the members > > of the society, they’re supposed to be MY > disciples. They follow the rules > > and regulations which I ask them to follow, and > they are INITIATED by me > > spiritually. So therefore the spiritual master is > called guru. That is > > Sanskrit language." > > I have a better argument for you that no-one can > defeat: > > When you look at the list of names (disciplic > succession) at the end of the > introduction to the Bhagavad-gita, you will see that > there is no name listed > after Srila Prabhupada's. So you have the evidence > right there in Srila > Prabhupada's book (which is the law book for the > next ten thousand years) > that none of Srila Prabhupada's disciples are > initiating gurus and that > Srila Prabhupada is the only initiating guru in > ISKCON. > > > However the truth is that a large number of Srila > Prabhupada's disciples > > never even met him, when Srila Prabhupada was > physicaly present. > > Of course they met him. They were all on the same > planet. Or do your > restrict "to meet" to "to be within a distance of 20 > meters"? > For me "meet" means "an interactive communication is > possible". This is just more non-sense. If "an interactive communication actually HAPPENED". THEN certainly it could be argued that they MET. To argue that just because they were on the same planet, thus a MEETING took place, is non-sense. The following is from www.dictionary.com. Please demonstrate from the following definitions of the word 'meet', which usage corresponds to YOUR own strictly private definition of the word 'meet'? 1]To come upon by chance or arrangement. 2]To be present at the arrival of: met the train. 3]To be introduced to. 4]To come into conjunction with; join: where the sea meets the sky. 5]To come into the company or presence of, as for a conference. 6]To come to the notice of (the senses): There is more here than meets the eye. 7]To experience; undergo: met his fate with courage. 8]To deal with; oppose: “We have met the enemy and they are ours” (Oliver Hazard Perry). 9]To cope or contend effectively with: meet each problem as it arises. 10]To come into conformity with the views, wishes, or opinions of: The firm has done its best to meet us on that point. 11]To satisfy (a need, for example); fulfill: meet all the conditions in the contract. See Synonyms at satisfy. 12]To pay; settle: enough money to meet expenses. v. intr. 13]To come together: Let's meet tonight. 14]To come into conjunction; be joined: “East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet” (Rudyard Kipling). 15]To come together as opponents; contend. 16]To become introduced. 17]To assemble. 18]To occur together, especially in one person or entity. n. A meeting or contest, especially an athletic competition. Phrasal Verb: meet with To experience or undergo. To receive: Our plan met with their approval. Idioms: meet (one's) Maker Slang To die. meet (someone) halfway To make a compromise with. > > Neither were they able to ask him any personal > questions. > > They could send him letters. > > > Your arguments are all defeated! > > You defeated strawman arguments. But maybe you > should try to defeat the > arguments I present. For example following one: > > You misunderstood the July 9th letter because you > tried to directly > understand a letter that was not meant to be read > and understood by you More non-sense. The July 9th document was pinned up on some temple notice boards, at that point in time. Therefore it was in view for all. Neither does it state 'Confidential'. > diectly. You did not learn its meaning through the > parampara, that means > from those to whom the letter was addressed. > So now you are saying that we can only understand Srila Prabhupada's instructions from the person or persons, he gave the instruction to. Please give me a quote from Srila Prabhupada to prove this? Or it is just another example of your persistant non-sense. > > I'm sorry if your are offended. > > I don't feel offended. It is just a waste of time to > personally attack me. > > I also see a circular conclusion in your arguments: > You claim to be Srila Prabhupada's disciple, > therefore you can understand > him correctly by directly hearing from him, As asked previously, where does Srila Prabhupada state that "One HAS to be my disciple to understand me correctly"? If so why did he mass produce so many books if only HIS disciple were going to be able to understand them? > therefore your understanding > that he is the only diksa guru for ISKCON is > correct, Where is the authorization from Srila Prabhupada for the so-called diksa guru successors in ISKCON? Learn the truth about the ISKCON guru hoax ISKCON Revival Movement - http://www.iskconirm.com ____ for Good Watch the Hurricane Katrina Shelter From The Storm concert http://advision.webevents./shelter 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.