Guru as a TRANSPARENT media

[theist 1]

Yes disciple must be qualified but let us not mistake that for academic qualifications. We should have some idea in what differentiates a genuine representative of Krsna from all the rest. But ultimately only Krsna really has a full understanding of who his representative is and our best bet is to depend on Krsna to reveal that person to us.

 

Another qualification of the disciple is that he is humble and understands that he is living in darkness and recognizes the guru as having the transcendental torch of light that he so despartly needs.

[tackleberry 1]

 

If you are just an ignorant person you are probably not ready to accept a guru, let alone make a wise choice in that area. Just like a guru should be qualified, a disciple should be qualified as well.

 

I think you've missed the point entirely, so I'll explain again.

 

YOU SAID: If you don't see Krishna speaking and acting through a certain person, you must not accept that person as a guru.

 

My response: Duryodhana (or any evil minded person) may not see Krishna speaking and acting through even an exalted devotee like Bhishma.

 

So would you conclude that Bhishma is not a qualified guru, based on your own premise that 'if you don't see krishna speaking and acting through a certain person, you must not accept that person as a guru??

[Kulapavana 0]

 

So would you conclude that Bhishma is not a qualified guru, based on your own premise that 'if you don't see krishna speaking and acting through a certain person, you must not accept that person as a guru??

 

I understood your point very well but that is not what I had in mind, or what I wrote (perhaps not very clearly). It simply means that this person is not to be accepted as YOUR guru. Just because someone is fit to be A guru does not mean that you should accept them as YOUR guru.

 

Actually it is even more complicated - you may even see Krsna speaking and acting through a particular person, yet this person may not really be an appropriate guru for you. I give you a personal example: Narayana Maharaja is without a doubt one of the most qualified Vaishnava gurus of our time (if not THE most qualified) and I clearly see Lord Krsna speaking and acting through Him. It would be a great honor to be accepted by him as a disciple. Yet, because my mood of service is different than his, I cannot accept him as my guru.

[theist 1]

 

I understood your point very well but that is not what I had in mind, or what I wrote (perhaps not very clearly). It simply means that this person is not to be accepted as YOUR guru. Just because someone is fit to be A guru does not mean that you should accept them as YOUR guru.

 

Actually it is even more complicated - you may even see Krsna speaking and acting through a particular person, yet this person may not really be an appropriate guru for you. I give you a personal example: Narayana Maharaja is without a doubt one of the most qualified Vaishnava gurus of our time (if not THE most qualified) and I clearly see Lord Krsna speaking and acting through Him. It would be a great honor to be accepted by him as a disciple. Yet, because my mood of service is different than his, I cannot accept him as my guru.

 

Kulapavana is trying to make an extremely important point here that if understood correctly would silence all this infantile bickering over who is the guru everyone should surrender to.

 

Please EVERYONE..... listen up.