Continuing from here
http://hps.monkeywarrior.com/node/7067
Dear Guru Maharaja, please accept my humble obeisances.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada!
Generally speaking, this is how I understand and act upon these kind of situations.
A person practices ISKCON sadhana bhakti, after some times stops the practice (by leaving ISKCON and joining some other sect, or stopping sadhana altogether). This person may be by profession an auto mechanic. If I need to fix a car, I may bring it to that person. But if that person is a philosopher and scholar by profession, and I need some philosophical points to discuss, I may need to be careful with what to hear/take from a person whose philosophy differs from our parampara.
This is given in simple words. There are more details to consider.
Is that proper?
HpS - As far as we can understand things we act in the same way, and of course there are details. Some people have left and become viscious demons. So, with them we don't even ask technical things.
About citations – they are about connections of Bhoja and Rupa Goswami, then some about historical facts , and about how Rupa Goswami uses Agni Purana.
Now that we are here on this topic, may I ask what you think and what you say to people who declare points that Nitai das propagates: that our line from BSST is not bonafide because BSST did not took initiation from Gaurakisora das Babaji. (There are more points but this is a main one).
Thank you!
Your servant Namacarya Das
HpS - Do you mean he didn't take Sannyaya from GKDB? Is there some doubt that GKDB didn't give him Mantra initiation as a Hari-nam disciple or Gayatri mantra?
Sannyasa is a Varna ashrama arrangement in some ways. Real parampara is one Sampradaya Acharya accepting another as his student and then passing the Bhava, perspective, attitude with Sastric reference to his disciple.
http://www.vedabase.com/en/sb/1/3/44
... aham — I; vaḥ — unto you; śrāvayiṣyāmi — shall let you hear; yathā-adhītam yathā-mati — as far as my realization.
O.K? Just brief idea. Depends very much on the motive of the person who is arguing, no?