following vs imitating

[mahak]

 

Haribol. I was going to write a big long article explaining the difference between imitating and following in the footsteps of Srila Prabhupada. But I shouldnt have to, not here, anyway.

Its really quite simple. The footsteps of Srila Prabhupada are immersed in servitude, completely lacking in false presitege, and completely full of compassion only for others without regard to self-interests.

Imitation is merely pretense. Pretending that Lord Nityananda Prabhu has ordained us, pretending that Srila Prabhupada guides us through dreams, etc. To follow in his footsteps means we do what he initially (initiation) told us, at the very beginning. Chant, and our lives become sublime. Give up all selfish desire and become more and more willing to see to the welfare of others. Read and become conversant

with the science presented in his books, and share realizations with all whom we come in contact with. Let Krsna guide us and guide those we associate with as well. When preaching, pray intently that Srila Prabhupada be pleased to speak through us however HE SEES FIT. Accept what service appears on the plate before us. Be

willing to accept those things we may not want to accept and reject that which we may want to keep. Be prepared to be his representative in all matters. This is why we chant, we are saying "Dear Lord Krsna, dear Srila Prabhupada, please engage us in devotional service". So we chant, and low and behold, right in front of us, is certainly plenty of service to do. This is his footsteps, never thinking of ones own proficiency, rather always thinking of the potency of Lord Krsna, and our Spiritual Master.

Hare Krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

<tt><tt> </tt></tt>

[Guruvani]

The arrogance of presuming to know the status and the attainment of an entire body of disciples of any given spiritual master is quite the egotistical mentality.

Really, we don't know anything about who is advanced and who is not.

To presume to be able to know who is imitating and who is a follower is also the epitome of arrogance and ignorance.

 

Really, we don't have a clue who is advanced and who is not, because external symptoms can never be a proper indicator of the internal development of any devotee of God.

 

Being the judge, jury and executioner of who is a real disciple and who is not just exposes our own actual failure to understand spirituality.

 

We aren't the judge.

 

When we propose to be the judge, then we expose ourselves as being envious and ignorant.

[Guest guest]

Although I don't want to get in a war with Guruvani, I will say that I appreciate is attitude against judging devotees.

 

However, taking the extreme side in any situation does no good. We have to be sober as devotees and also use our common sense (not that I am accusing the opposing side of not doing so).

 

What I mean is sastra tells us to take shelter of a Guru. The act of taking shelter of a Guru automatically induces us to make a judgement call. One cannot just surrender to anyone, one indeed is forced to judge. So we DO have to judge who is qualified to be our Guru and who isn't. Why else would Rupa Goswami explain IN HIS FIRST SLOKA of upadesmrta 'vaco vegam manasah krodha vegam' etc. You don't tell someone who is fit to instruct the world, if they are not able to discern that. And in order to dicern we are effectively judging.

 

What I don't mean to say however is that we should start running up to every vaisnava we see and start making judgement calls as to what they're doing is right or wrong. However, that does not me we shouldn't judge at all.

[Guest guest]

I have no idea what provokes guruvani, why he spouts off here about judging, but since he did, he is absolutely wrong.

 

Who else is to judge. We directly made this sentimental proposal to Srila Prabhupada, who was demanding to know why we were following such and such goswami. We said it is not up to us to judge, and his response was "then you are fool number one."

 

The ultimate authority on who is guru is the disciple. The guru MUST be judged by the disciple. If one doubts this, then they shou;ld carefully read Srila Prabhupadas, "Science of Self Realization, Chapter two, where he demands thaT ONE NEVER ACCEPT A GURU OUT OF CONVENTION OR SUDDENLY OUT OF FANATICISM. oNE MUST CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZINGLY UNDERSTAND THIS PHILOSOPHY. Scrutinize meaNS TO judge.

 

So I judge who I care to hear from and take seriously. What is the alternative? To join up with others to all go to hell on the same boat? To just look for someone who is going thru the motions and pretend this is enough? Actually, the christians have this problem with their "born again" propaganda. Jesus Christ has no need for babies, he wants us to be mature in our understanding.

 

Anyway, how does this relate to what I started with on this topic, or is our "bad day dude" just being provokative for the sake of discussion? haribol, ys, mahaksadasa

[Guruvani]

Using discrimination to make a choice in accepting a guru does not give anyone the license to then judge the whole Vaishnava community as to who advanced and who is not.

 

Sure, we have to make a choice as to who we accept as our spiritual master, but then the mentality of being the judge of all all the Vaishnavas as if we are perfectly qualified to make that judgement has to stop.

 

We make our choices for our siksha and diksha gurus, but then the attitude of being the judge of everyone has to stop.

 

Even then, our choice for accepting a guru can be very risky because really it takes a self-realized soul to even begin to judge a devotee of the Lord.

 

To come out and pretend to have the knowledge and expertise to judge who is a follower and who is a pretender is the pinnacle of arrogance and and enviousness.

 

Fact is, we don't have a clue who is self-realized and who is not.

We probably don't even know what self-realization actually means.

 

Because, in fact, there is such a thing as an avadhuta who doesn't show the formal external features of a self-realized soul, but who is more advanced that someone who cuts the profile of the strict sadhaka.

 

I am not claiming to be an avadhuta, even though I have joked around about it.

I am a nobody. I am not an avadhuta.

I am a sadhana drop-out, just like I dropped out of Boy Scouts, Karate school, the military and ISKCON.

 

But, there very well might be advanced devotees amongst the disciples of Srila Prabhupada that so many of us are prone to pass judgement on as being unfit and unqualified.

 

I am guilty myself.

I have proposed to be the judge on occasion myself.

 

But, inside myself I know better.

I say things in retaliation against those who denigrate things that they really have no authority to assault.

 

I don't believe that the concept of parampara has to be defined in terms of physical succession.

I believe that some of the greatest followers of Srila Prabhupada have not even been born yet.

I don't accept that the hippies and derelicts from the early days of ISKCON have any monopoly on being followers of Srila Prabhupada.

 

I think the attempt to deprive devotees in the future of being considered disciples of Srila Prabhupada is a rip-off and a fraud.

 

Still, I resent it when someone comes out to judge all the disciples of Srila Prabhupada and say that none of them have the right or the qualifications to accept the role as successor to Srila Prabhupada and become initiating spiritual masters.

 

We have no real qualifications to presume to judge who is spiritual master and who is not.

 

Choosing a diksha guru or a siksha guru does not gives us the license to judge all the devotees of the Krishna consciousnesss as if we are the most qualified of all to make these judgements.

 

Most often, judging others is just enviousness.

It's not like we really are fit to judge anybody.

[gHari]

Srila Prabhupada was a follower. They were all followers. Like the man said, this is the way.

 

That was the humble perspective we all needed, Mahaksadasa. We sometimes get too great.