Arguing with a Spiritual Master: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:Argue]] | |||
[[Category:Spiritual Master|2]] | [[Category:Spiritual Master|2]] | ||
[[Category:Acarya, Guru, Spiritual Master - Umbrella Category|2]] | [[Category:Acarya, Guru, Spiritual Master - Umbrella Category|2]] | ||
[[Category:All Categories - Vaniquotes]] | [[Category:All Categories - Vaniquotes]] | ||
Latest revision as of 07:40, 23 January 2024
Pages in category "Arguing with a Spiritual Master"
The following 10 pages are in this category, out of 10 total.
G
- Guru means whatever instruction he'll give, we have to accept without any argument. Vedic knowledge is like that. You cannot interpret. As it is, you have to accept
- Guru means, accept guru means, "Whatever you say, I will accept." That is guru. Otherwise friendly talk. Friendly talk will not do. To accept guru means "Now I accept you, guru, my instructor, without any argument," and that is acceptance
T
- The 1st accusation (of 3 sahajiyas level accusations against Srila Jiva Gosvami) concerns a materialist who was very proud of his reputation as a great Sanskrit scholar and approached Sri Rupa and Sanatana to argue with them about the revealed scriptures
- The son or disciple should accept the words of his spiritual master and father without hesitation. Whatever the father and the spiritual master order should be taken without argument: Yes
W
- We can go on arguing for days together, but there is no decision. That is friendly talk. But when there is talk between a master and disciple, there is no question of arguing. The disciple has to accept what is ordered by the master
- When guru speaks, you cannot argue. That is not the process. You should accept a guru who is infallible. Otherwise it is useless. He accepted guru Krsna because Krsna is infallible