kamalamala1 wrote:I realy think that you are wrong one should question everything especially teachers.
Well, you are free to think whatever you want thats your right. I just say that everything has its time and its justification in life. Even that what you may call "blindly accepting" And indeed one should not really accept something "blindly" rather accept something consciously, meaning that you should try to understand something in your own personal way taking it from different angles of vision until it may become part of ones own understanding and consciousness. But to do this you have to be educated first in such a way that you may feel the need to do such a thing. So some "blind" acceptance may be also needed for you while you may be a child in school until you are grown up and mature and really learned enough so that you may understand the basics on which you should orientate or guide yourself in life. Prabhupada takes this understanding further by saying that whenever you feel the need to understand and learn something spiritual more deeply one should so called surrender to the teachings of the spiritual master. I just write this as an information I was reading ones in his books. So like I said this black and white idea of you where you complitelly exclude the necessity of something like accepting something so called blindly doesnt really convince me.
You write that a "good teacher will like such a desciple" I would say a teacher may indeed like someone who is inquiring something more in order to understand something better but I doubt that every teacher will like it if a pupil or disciple will always put into question his integrity as a teacher of a certain institution or that what he may teach to him.
You write: "And more then that before accepting teacher one should really deeply question if the teacher really knows what he teaches, it is very esential since one is going to give his life to the other person figurativelly saying." No doubt one should take some time to inquire, explore and investigate if a person is indeed that what he may pretend to be. I was also reading ones a story in our local newspaper about a doctor, a physician who was working for a few years in a hospital here in Nuremberg until it somehow was found out that he was actually a fake and his so called diploma or certificate was also faked. But he was somehow naturally talented to be a physician and the pacients liked him and he also knew what he was doing and his diagnosis were also corect. So there are also such naturally talented persons.
Krishna also tells Arjuna "Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the truth. (Bhagavad-gita)
So why not try to discuss and argue among us what that what Krishna told Arjuna could really mean. Like you said "Blindly accepting anything is dangerious. Especialy spiritual teachers," one like Krishna may also be, I suppose.
So what is really "the truth" what one should "try" to "learn"? What does it mean to "inquire from him (the spiritual teacher or guru) submissively and render service unto him"? What kind of "service" should one render to him and why? What may Krishna mean by saying "self-realized soul" which should be able to "impart knowledge unto you"? What kind of knowledge? What could Krishna mean by implying that such a person a so called "self-realized soul" may have "seen the truth"? What truth? Questions over questions which I guess will engage us for quite a while to discuss.