Initiation (?)

[Guest guest]

> >

> > I have tried to show through several of my texts lately that the reason

> > why I want to discuss these things is not to win a discussion, it is to

> > start to find out the truth. To defeat me in such a discussion may not

> > be very difficult, because I don't know so much about it.

>

> Well, you are not really sitting there, infront of your "comp",

> in the cross-legged posture with your hands folded together,

> like Maharaja Pariksit sat infront of Sukadeva, are you?

 

No, you're right. Please don't be offended by this, but if I had Sukadeva

Goswami in front of me, I think I WOULD do just that. But since I don't know

anyone on the level of Sukadeva Goswami, and since I have burned my fingers

by accepting authority without making sure my doubts were actually removed

first, I go on arguing.

 

I could pretend that I accept things which I am not sure about, but what is

the point of that? That's the mistake I did in the past. Therefore, I DO

argue back. I believe that is my duty, otherwise I am fooling myself.

 

> It's a kind of discussion-debate, where arguments are thrown

> in back and forts. I try to defeat the arguments (not _you_,

> however it's you the one who is placing them, so... good greef)

> that I find "suitable for defeating". What to do. Forgive me my

> bad habit.

 

I have a similar habit, so that is ok. I took this up for discussion because

I wanted just that. What I am asking is that you don't look at me as if I

think I am an authority on the subject.

 

> Anyway, Vainavas (opps.. "Vaisnava candidates") don't mind to be

> defeated in such debates by another.. hmmm... if it serves, finally, for

> increasing the understanding.

 

Whatever relevance that has for me, I "like" to be defeated if I am sure

that it was because the other person was right, not just because he was so

heavy that I found it best to shut up. Otherwise, I would do like numerous

ISKCON devotees before me, namely pretend to agree, but actually disagree.

Pointless, if you ask me.

 

> > > For him it did not matter that she was not maha-bhagavata. He took the

> > > instruction into the heart.

> >

> > Yes, but he got good instructions before he got attatched to the

> > prostitute, is it not? (I am sorry to say that I am not sure about all

> > the details of the story).

>

> Quite the opposite. He was mad after her, runninig through the

> storm, jumping over crocodiles,... just to meet her. Then she

> instructed him to better transer that attachment, from her to

> Krsna. So he did.

 

I meant something else, but I anyway see your point.

 

> > So that meant that he was spiritually

> > "re-awakened", and he took it that Krishna was speaking through her.

>

> That's exactly the case of all us -- re-awakining our spirituality.

>

> And that's exactly the case of a bona fide guru -- via media, someone who

> Krsna speaks through.

>

> And that's exactly how we should see someone who gives us good,

> spiritual instruction -- our guru. One that Krsna (Paramatama)

> inspired to tell us something for our spiritual benefit.

 

Sure! Everyone who has something valuable to teach me about spiritual life

is my guru.

 

> > I have heard so many things in different lectures and read som many

> > things in Srila Prabhupada's books, but one thing which somehow is stuck

> > in my consciousness is that the only was to get out of the material

> > world is through the mercy of a pure devotee. Am I completely off having

> > this idea?

>

> Not completely off.

 

Thank you.

 

> > In this quote it says "they cannot". Anyway, the point is obviously that

> > Prabhupada does not really recommend such a solution, isn't it?

>

> Well, let's read a few words further:

>

> In this quote it says "they cannot advance very well". Take "very well"

> out, and we are left with "they cannot advance". Is that's what you are

> proposing to be the meaning?

 

That was not "my" quote. I don't propose any other meaning to it than what

it says.

 

> Yes, obviously Srila Prabhupada does not recommend the inferior

> type of advancement, through the inferior guru. But he does not

> reject the inferior guru as bogus, as simply useless, that

> you can't get any spiritual advancement from/through. And that

> is the point we are discussing/debating here.

 

It is one point which we have been discussing. And I feel like I have a more

clear understanding of that aspect now, even if I hope it will become more

clear to me in the years to come.

 

Ys

Jkd