Initiation (?)

[Guest guest]

> > > 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?

 

The quote does not specifically tell us that, I agree.

 

> > 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)

 

I agree that this has become a side-topic of this discussion, so even if I

find it interesting, maybe we should skip getting into that right now.

 

> 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.

 

I agree.

 

> 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".

 

Due to my illusion, it was not clear to me that this was excactly what you

were asking him for. Now I agree with you, that this point has become the

essence of the discussion. (And that was actually my basic question in the

first place). So please excuse me for accusing you like that.

 

You and Madhava Gosh provided strong quotes for the fact that a

madhyama-adhikari or even a kanistha adhikari can be a guru under certain

circumstances. But the question remains from my side then; do you have any

sastric evidence which proves that this madhyama- or kanistha- guru can

connect one to Srila Prabhupada and the parampara? That is a question which

is just as fair as the one you are asking Samba. And I am not asking it to

provoke you or anyone, I am asking because I think that is as relevant as

the question you are asking. (They are both equally relevant)...

 

> 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".

 

I some times get that argument used against me, and if you want to use it, I

cannot force you to do otherwise. But I would hope you to be mature and

tolerant enough to ignore such a mistake on my part, now that I apologized

for it.

 

> > 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.

 

You should know that I am one of those who DO appreciate you for your

straight-forwardness, even if it can be a bit uncomfortable to be the

receiver of your texts some times.

 

What I meant is that in this discussion Samba goes on to try to explain

things in a logical way, but he is simply being rediculed and "everything"

he says is picked apart. It sounds to me like he is trying to discuss things

which are important to him, and I think he deserves more than just to be

picked apart. It sounds like you some times don't want his points to be

true, and therefore redicule him instead, without considering that he could

actually be right, at least from one angle.

 

If he is wrong, then I appreciate that you argue against those points which

are wrong, but there are different ways to do that. He did not start to call

everyone names or redicule any other conferance member here, so I don't see

the reason for this cynicism and sarcasm.

 

> > 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.

 

If you read my paragraphs above, you will understand what I mean. I am not

talking about specific points.

 

> All undefined and vague. Sorry.

 

It was, I agree. I did not really know how to express myself. Is it more

clear now?

 

Ys

Jkd