Pure devotee shouldn't be a guessing game

[Guest guest]

On 24 May 1999, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

> As sincere devotees, Krsna will send us many well wishers. Ultimately, it is

Krsna's, or should I say Radharani's, decision to bestow pure devotional

service. Naturally, they are inclined to fulfill the desires of all their

devotees, advanced or otherwise.

 

Nice point. But how many more births will it take *US* before WE sincerely

cry out for the *manifest* divine grace of sad-guru? We have to take some

personal responsibility for not being able to discriminate between the

different categories of Vaisnavas (mixing 3rd with 1st) or not being able to

recognize genuine sadhus when they are present on this earth.

 

> It is again most curious that we may say Srila Prabhupada is so powerful he

can save us from material life, then in the next breath insinuate that none of

his disciples have been saved from material life.

>

> Kinda sounds like pretzel logic to me.

 

Your "pretzel" argument must have come out of New York because it doesn't

follow logically or spiritually. First of all, what do you mean by "saved"?

Being "saved from material life" doesn't equate with being qualified to act as

a _sad-guru_ or translate into a qualified "pure" devotee. They are not

synonymous. "Saved" comes in different degrees. Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati

Thakura used to say that his entire preaching mission, the Gaudiya Math, would

be successful if he created only _1_ pure devotee. But many of his disciples

were from Vaisnava families and were life-long _pacca_ celibates. Sounds like

"saved from material life" to me.

 

Of course, we know in retrospect that Srila Bhaktisiddhanta happened to create

so many pure devotees. Still, why would he make that comment?

 

BUT there have been many maha-bhagavata acaryas who did NOT create any

glorious successor. Otherwise, how do you account for the gaps in the

disciplic succession? A pure devotee is under no obligation -- like some

so-called effective CEO of an American "results" oriented corporation -- to

creat a production quota of "pure devotees. Even our Prabhupada didn't

manifest his "purity" until 30 years after the disappearance of Bhaktisddhanta

Sarasvati.

 

So bide your time, be patient. Then we will see who is or who is not "pure".

Then again we have to have the eyes to see, which also takes purity. With all

respect to Harikesa Maharaja (I cry when I think about him), until only a few

short months ago, many thousands of people across ISKCON were thinking he was

one such "pure" devotees. If we judge by the statistics, we've been wrong far

more than we've been right on this number. So let's have no more guessing. No

gambling.

 

Consequently, the honest answer philosophically at this point (aside from our

own subjective views), is to say that the jury is still out on the matter

concerning who is pure, who is not, or how many. It's your spiritual life, so

you can decide for yourself. But not beyond that.

 

"So many thousands of followers" is not a qualification; it's not a popularity

contest. "But he's GBC approved." Sorry, that's no guarantee either. "Pure

devotee" is also not a matter of a rubber stamp. "GBC approved" means he's

approved by the GBC (whatever that means???).

 

Speaking of juries, there is in fact at this very moment, a court case

pondering this self-same question! Not that these things can be decided in a

court of law. But the point is that it is a personal judgment to presume that

there must be *qualified* pure devotees in ISKCON, not a matter of necessary

truth.

 

Our general experience in ISKCON should tell us to err on the side of

reticence.

 

Srila dasa