Initiation (?)

[Guest guest]

> > There is never an end. Then an another pure soul would be needed to

> > enlighten us and clear up the apparent contradictions in the previous

> > pure soul's clearing word, and then another, another.. So you got that

> > what is called "The disciplic succession".

>

> Your reply seems to indicate that there is something wrong with a pure

> soul? Do you and I share the same understanding of what a pure soul is?

> Would we not welcome hundreds of pure souls? Or are are you referring to

> some kind of ISKCONised conception of a person posing to be a pure soul?

 

I am referring to some kind of ISCKONised conception of a

person posing to be a pure soul.

 

No kidding. I simply transferred your believes into practical

form. Your points:

 

1. We minimized the teachings of the acarya (Prabhupada).

2. We need pure souls to clear it up to us.

 

So my reply indicates that you are, practically speaking, looking

for the continuation of disciplic succession, since the present

one, apparently, is failing to properly transfer the teachings of

the previous acarya (Prabhupada) further on.

 

 

>

> If Srila Prabhupada was here now, we would not need anyone to clear up

> what he wrote because he would be here to do so. As he is not available

> for this function, we need someone who is also a mahabhagavat to do so.

 

That's what you think to be the case. I don't. But that doesn't

make me now think that something is wrong with sadhus, does it?

Or that I think we should not welcome pure souls. Or God knows

what else obvious nonsense. Please...

 

 

> > Sounds almost like "the broken chain of disciplic succession".

> > Already so soon, right after Prabhupada's departure.

>

> Prabhuji, what are you saying? You are so quick to jump to conclusions. It

> is quite simple. Srila Bhaktisiddhanta makes it quite clear. Bhaktivinoda

> Thakur had passed. He wrote and taught his disciples extensively, but he

> made it clear in his teachings, as does Srila Prabhupada, that the

> *principle* is to serve and hear from the LIPS of a living Bhagavata

> devotee.

 

OK, I withdraw my "sounds almost like broken..". I'll replace it

with "Sounds almost like the teachings of Acarya are minimized

so soon, right after his departure". Is that better now?

 

>

> Bhaktisiddhanta says repeatedly that even though the folower may have got

> it by heart, everything taught by Bhaktivinoda, unless he HEARS it from a

> pure source, it wont be Sabdha Brahman, but simply so many alphabets.

> Bhaktivinoda Thakur says the same thing himself in his own teachings, and

> this is what Srila Bhaktisiddhanta is reminding the Thakur's followers. he

> says that 'No honest man' can fail to recognise this.

>

 

And I was brainwashed all the time that reading transcendental

Bhaktivedanta purports is as good as HEARING (sravanam) from

the pure source! But, alas, you rell me now that without having

a pure soul in between, it's all nothing but - alphabets.

 

Time for clearing misunderstandings?

 

 

> Hearing and serving a pure devotee, is siddhantic. Its what a person is

> supposed to do in order to get spiritual advancement. Spiritual

> advancement cannot be gotten by any amount of study, it comes from mercy.

 

What about, say, producing Srila Prabhupada's books, distributing

them, and studding them? Is that acceptable for you as the possible

way for our spiritual advancement, and for getting the mercy?

 

 

> Lord Krsna himself taught this by going to the forest to collect firewood

> for Sandipani muni. He could have manifested tons of firewood, but he

> taught us that service to ones guru is the way.

 

Where our service to our Founder Acarya, Srila Prabhupada, has

disappeared? Fool me, I wasted 14 years of my life in illusion

that I was serving Prabhupada and his mission.

 

 

 

>

> You can certainly alert the mass of people that there is such a thing as

> spiritual life, and that they should aspire for it. Let them read Srila

> Prabhupadas books as they are full of very practical instructions for

> Varnasrama, which he explains is not spiritual in itself, but serves to

> elevate one to the mode of goodness, where one can, as long as he has the

> mercy, jump off into Suddha Sattva or pure goodness (pure devotion). There

> is a wealth of preparatory information, especialy for those with no idea

> of spirtual life. But to realy get into the MYSTERY of spritual life

> simply jnana will not do. Service to an ACTUAL pure soul is absolutely

> needed.

>

[...]

 

 

I would like to know which pure maha-bhagavata you were listening

the explanations of Bhaktisiddhanta's "Harmonist" from. Otherwise,

you just said it yourself:

 

 

"Bhaktisiddhanta says repeatedly that even though the follower may

have got it by heart, everything taught by Bhaktivinoda, unless he

HEARS it from a pure source, it wont be Sabdha Brahman, but simply

so many alphabets."

 

Simply so MANY ALPHABETS, otherwise.

 

[...]

>

> Now consider that he means by the word devotee: pure devotee

> mahabhagavata, as that is the standard for someone who is *actualy* a

> devotee, and not someone who is aspiring for devotion. Ok we call each

> other devotees, but how devoted are we, really?

>

> Then consider what he means by non devotee: someone who tries to obtain

> spiritual life by jnana (reading) as opposed to the service of a pure

> devotee. He considers the jnani to be an 'empiric pedant', and therefore a

> non devotee).

[...]

 

 

Still your interpretation of Bhaktisiddhanta's "Harmonist"?

(what was the topic anyway?)

 

Normally I wouldn't mind. But it was you to tell us that it's

all "empiric pedantizam" and just "alphabets" without listening

it from the lips of the pure soul, without rendering service

and getting the mercy of that pure soul. So, I am really curious

to get knowing how did you menage to not get yourself into "empiric

pendantizam" and "alfabeta" with Bhaktisiddhanta and Bhaktivinode,

while we all others can't it with Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

 

ys mnd

 

PS. I am just making my arguments on my way, I hope you will not

become upset with me. You've just told me: