Initiation (?)

[Guest guest]

> > > "One should not become a spiritual master unless he has attained the

> > > platform of uttama adhikary... The uttama adhikari or highest devotee,

> > > is one who is very advanced in devotional service. An uttama adhikari

> > > is not interested in blaspheming others, his heart is completely

> > > clean, and he has attained the realised state of unnalloyed Krsna

> > > Consciousness. According to Rupa Goswami, the association and service

> > > of such a mahabhagavata, or perfect vaisnava, are most desirable..."

> > >

> >

> > One should not become a guru unless he is uttama... but if one

> > becomes, what then?

> >

> > This quote doesn't make an evidence for that I asked you for.

>

> What would make such an evidence for you? You start to remind me of me,

> who was presented with a lot of good arguments, but who still did not want

> to get it. The above quote is quite clear if you "want" it to be.

 

Can you, please, explain how this particular quote is so clearly

telling us that, if the initiating guru is not an uttama-adhikari,

the disciple can't begin actual spiritual advancement, that the

disciple can't be connected to Guru Parampara?

 

 

 

>

> That is what I have been convinced of by your good self and Madhava Gosh.

> I agree that this sounds like it is possible. But how do you know whether

> someone is a madhyama-adhikari? That is also a very high status, and it is

> a level from which one generally does not fall down. How many gurus in

> ISKCON can we be sure that is on that level?

>

 

At the moment it is not of relevance "how-to-recognize".

Neither "how-many-ISCKON-gurus" are at best madhyamas.

(the former one we could eventually discuss, but the

later one, without me)

 

That what is of relevance is to resolve wether a madhyama-adhikari

guru, a disciple of Prabhupada, is given the concession to initiate

and connect his disciples to Srila Prabhupada and the seva of

Srila Prabhupada. Samba's position is "NO". I want to see on what

exactly is based such position. Your response: "you just don't want

to see it".

So, I will mark this response o yours, and whenever you ask for the

convincing evidence for something, I will hit the "paste" key:

"You just don't want to see it".

 

 

 

> > This doesn't address my request even closely.

>

> But it is a good point, which I at least shall take to heart.

 

Nobody objects it being good.

 

But if we are going to discuss something on the way the practicing

students off Zen-Buddhism use to do, then "adios" to any sensible

conclusion.

 

 

 

> It sounds to

> me like you are getting more than a little cynical with Samba here. I have

> to say that I appreciate many of his points, and I am happy that he dares

> to speak so straight-forward, even if he obviously becomes a bit unpopular

> amongst some for what he is saying.

 

I am sure that I have also become a "bit unpopular" amongst some

for my "straight-forward" speeches. If that's the sign of being

correct, then here I am. On the top of the list.

 

 

> If you want to misunderstand him, I

> can see how that is possible, but I think he has caught some points which

> few others here may have caught, and they don't all seem crazy to me...

 

It would be more practical that you address that *particular

points* of his that you think I chose to misunderstand.

 

All undefined and vague. Sorry.

 

 

 

ys mnd