Initiation (?)

[Guest guest]

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

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

>

 

Ooops.. I deleted it by chance, the part that was suppose

to come after "You've just told me:"

 

But it was the one ("Read very carefully the article I posted from

the Harmonist...") that has been, in the meantime, responded on

by Janesvara.

 

 

> This argument really sums up my entire point. We are reading the

> Bhagavatam day and night (well I'm actualy not that regular, but it makes

> a good point), I read black and you read white.

>

 

 

As far as our different reading the Bhagavatam, I actually do

not know how do you read it, we did not discuss it so far really,

so I can't for sure say wether differences between our readings

are so drastic. I would rather expect that we may differ in

some points.

 

 

> Are you really sure we dont need any help trying to resolve it all? I have

> my perspective on what Prabhupada says and you have yours, will we ever

> agree? The movement seems to split into more factions as the days go by,

> yet we all read the same books, that says to me that we need help.

 

 

Wel'll never resolve it all. Even while Srila Prabhupada was

present, when he was himself explaining his own purports, still

there was not resolved all. However, the authorative presence

of such acarya kept (more than less) all centered around him.

But as soon as he departed, all those "black" and "red" and

"blue" hearings pupped out, like the popcorn in the hot pot.

 

But you have formed now your question on the way (Are you sure we

don't need help...?") that it would be unreasonable from me to say

"No". However, our dissagriment is not in wether we would need help

or not (the help is always wellcome). It is that you consider Srila

Prabhupada's books to be the materilistic vibration (as oposed to

sabdha-brahma) unless heared from an another maha-bhagavata,

another acarya.

 

 

>

> Srila Bhaktisiddhanta specificaly points out that once having read the

> Thakur's works using ones empiric faculty, one cannot escape the basic

> conclusion, which is that in order to FULLY understand one needs to HEAR

> the message from the pure soul. This is not my argument it is his.

 

That what Srila Bhaktisiddhanta speciffically points out are

_Thakur's works_. Not Srila Prabhupada's works. But you have

drown out _your_ conclusions (without any help of any maha-

bhagavata) that it is the case with Srila Prabhupada's books

aslo. Thus it is not Bhaktisiddhanta's argument anymore, but

Samba's.

 

 

> He says

> you only have to be honest to understand *that much* (in other words, it

> is possible for us to understand that much without the help of a realised

> sadhu.). The rest requires guidance.

 

He says. About Prabhupada's works?

 

 

How much one can go till by simply reading Prabhupada's books,

here is what Srila Prabhupada says about his own books:

 

"Now people are reading all kind of nonsense books and thus their

reading capacity is helping to pave their way through the circles

of birth and death. If they will simply take to reading this

transcendental literature we are presenting, the same reading

capacity will elevate them to the highest perfection of spiritual

life."

(SPL to Harer Nama)

 

*That much*.

 

 

 

>

> He says it like this:

> "There have however arisen serious misunderstandings regarding the proper

> interpretation of the life and teachings of Thakura Bhaktivinoda. Those

> who suppose they understand the meaning of his message without securing

> the guiding grace of the acarya are disposed to unduly favour the method

> of empiric study of his writings.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada never told us that we got to secure the guidance

of an another acarya in order to understand the meaning of his

message. I am not the supporter of some "cutting&pasting"

application of the words of previous acaryas, without taking

in consideration just any other specifics. Like, for example,

by simply taking these words of Bhaktisiddhanta, your

("Bhaktisiddhanta's") argument can be completed with -- Narayana

Maharaja. He is an acarya, isn't he? Bhakisiddhanta says to secure

an acarya for explanation [of Prabhupada's works]. So let's go to an

acarya [Narayana Maharaja].

 

Thus by going to Bhaktisiddhanta, instead to Prabhupada, for

getting the info on how much we can understand Prabhupada's

books without having an another acarya explaining them to us, we

might split ISCKON into fractions even more.

 

 

 

>

> Anyway Prabhu, I also apologise if I got a bit 'hot under the collar' in

> my responses to you. I think one problem I am having is that I am not

> quite grasping the way you format the English in your arguments.

>

 

I like when it get's a bit "hot" sometimes... Have already spent

too many years here up, in Sweden... got a rheum already, asthma

along it.. And people get somewhat hot in their discussions only

when in "bastu" (kind of Scandinavian sauna).

 

 

> If you dont mind I would like to bow out of this discussion, it is getting

> a bit over my head. Actualy I am not very learned, I just like to get

> clued up on the basics, and to me this is pretty basic, I believe

> Bhaktisiddhanta.

 

I belive him also. It's only the question of wether he meant it

all about Prabhupada's books, videos, audio tapes... But here

we stay with our own conclusions (in the absence of an acarya to

settle the matter for us

 

>

> I hope that is OK (and I am not trying to be sarcastic).

 

OK.

 

 

 

ys mnd.