Pure devotee shouldn't be a guessing game

[Guest guest]

On 24 May 1999, Srila Dasa wrote:

 

 

>

> > 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"?

>

 

If we are not engaged as pure devotees, then we are still dealing with

conditional desires to some degree. So, an argument could be made we are still

victims of material life, and thus not entirely 'saved'.

 

 

> "Saved" comes in different degrees.

 

Yes, that is so true. We are on the path, and our creeper of devotion will

only increase if we so desire. Thus, our future is auspicious.

 

 

>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.

>

 

And yet Bhaktisiddhanta also complained about the neophyte tendencies of his

disciples. I believe there is some quote about his leaving due to this fact.

 

 

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

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

>

 

Sometimes an idea of 'creating' pure devotees can appear almost like some

cheerleading squad proclaiming how their favorite devotee is the best. I

really do not think pure devotion is subjected to our endorsement.

 

 

> Even our Prabhupada didn't

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

Bhaktisddhanta Sarasvati.

>

 

To me this is a bit of an overintellectualization concerning the position of

the various devotees, either advanced or otherwise. Let the devotees serve

Krsna to their hearts content and we shall see what result He awards.

 

 

> 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.

>

 

Yes, I think it is noteworthy to glorify the qualities we can actually

percieve and appreciate. Sort of like preaching according to our realization.

 

 

> 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.

>

 

 

Again, what is the real issue of all this? Even if all the other devotees are

'pure' devotees, we can only appreciate according to our own realization. Let

the devotees serve, and let Radharani decide who she wants to recommend to

Krsna as a pure hearted servant.

 

 

> "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???).

>

 

 

The GBC does not approve pure devotees -- when is that gonna be made clear?

The GBC offers only a no objection statement to devotees who have made it

clear that they wish to enter into a formal diksa relationship.

 

 

> 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.

>

 

I think it better we simply concern ourselves with attempting to follow Srila

Prabhupada to the best of our capacity, not simply imagining who is a pure

devotee and who isn't.

 

To be able to appreciate the good qualities in any devotee is extremely

exalted -- as in not being enamored by the neophyte conception.

 

Sthita