Which sastra says...?

[Guest guest]

> The way the pro-rtviks put it is absurd: "A powerful diksa-guru such as

> Srila Prabhupada CAN post-humously initiate and accept disciples. Which

> sastra says that he cannot do so?"

 

Obviously it is an absurd argument. The ignorant children only

may argue like that, not the grown-up people.

 

The mentioned pro-rtvik "argument" is nothing but the way of

departing from the sastras and yet trying to maintain the bluff

"We are sticking to the sastra". The process is to open the sastras

and find out what they tell us to do. Not to "find" out what they

do not say and then speculate out some fantastic conclusions that

would directly contradict that what sastras are stating. There would

be no limit to what one could come up with such "process".

 

>

> We also know that Lord Krsna is sarva-saktiman, He can do anything. And He

> is present as the Deity form. Now, the Deity form, if He wants, can

> certainly eat raw rice grains which are offered to Him. Which sastra says

> that Krsna CANNOT eat offered raw rice grains? No sastra says so. But can

> one then conclude that it is alright to offer raw rice grains to Krsna?

 

Certainly. The rtviks "can" thus take the initiation from the

Deity of Krsna. Which sastra says that Krsna cannot directly

initiate and impart the knowledge to someone? Why the need of

any guru, be it Srila Prabhupada or anybody else.

 

Thus there is no limit to the ocean of impresonalism and mayavada

that one can dive into, if desiring so. But why try to pull others

into the same misery of such spiritual suicide?

 

 

 

ys mnd