Devotees and Experts - On the qualities of a Vaishnava

"Devotees are ALWAYS merciful, humble, truthful, equal to all, faultless, magnanimous, mild, and clean. They are without material possessions, and they perform welfare work for everyone. They are peaceful, surrendered to Krsna and desireless. They are indifferent to material acquisitions and are fixed in devotional service.
They COMPLETELY control the six bad qualities--lust, anger, greed, and so forth. They eat only as much as required, and they are not inebriated. They are respectful, grave, compassionate, and without false prestige. They are friendly, poetic, expert, and silent."
--Cc. Madhya 22.78-80

Until this state is reached...who are we to even consider ourselves "devotees" let alone experts on any topic?

YS

I split this into a separate thread.

Does being a devotee mean that one is an expert or a scholar, and does being an expert or a scholar mean one is a devotee? I don't think so.

But this should prove to be an interesting topic to discuss.

= = =

For the reference, here's the original Bengali of the verse cited above:

kRpAlu, akRta-droha, satya-sAra sama |
nidoSa, vadAnya, mRdu, zuci, akiJcana || 78 ||
sarvopakAraka, zAnta, kRSNaika-zaraNa |
akAma, anIha, sthira, vijita-SaD-guNa || 79 ||
mita-bhuk, apramatta, mAnada, amAnI |
gambhIra, karuNa, maitra, kavi, dakSa, maunI || 80 ||

I don't mean to spoil the party, Yamaraja, but the words you chose to emphasize don't appear in the original text. "Devotees are always" is the translator's prelude to three verses which only give a list of qualities. Vijita sad-guna means conquering the six qualities, the word "completely" is not there.

I'm not objecting to the translator's right to color up the verse, but before one begins to capitalize words to emphasize something, it'd be good to check whether it's there in the original text. Otherwise it is a bit pointless.

I took this translation from Satsvarupa Maharajas book "The Twenty-Six Qualities of a Devotee".

I do not currently own a copy (or the complete volumes set) of Cc...but I'm working on it!

My point was that we should maybe be a little MORE concerned with where we are heading, spiritualy, instead of getting into alot of "catch 22" debates!

I dont see "debate" as any form of glorification of the Lord....only glorification of the self!

YS

siddhAnta baliyA citte nA kara alasa |
ihA ha-ite kRSNe lAge sudRDha mAnasa || CC 1.2.117 ||

"Do not be a lazy fellow in your mind when it comes to discussing siddhanta. Through them, your mind becomes firmly fixed in Krishna."

If we indeed do wish to ascertain the direction of our spiritual life, what better a way to do it than discuss the matter with fellow Vaishnavas?

Besides isnt your response just side-stepping the point of the verse?

YM

Now, thats better!

But...the type of "debates" us "Vaishnavas" get into arent really "discussions"...are they!

Of course if a debater has strong desire for pratishtha, the debate becomes a competition of the ego. But proper debate can enlighten all participants, at either side of the sectarian divide, both 'winner' and 'loser' - satam prasangam mama virya samvido bhavanti hrit karna rasayana kathah; tajjosanad asvapavarga vartmani shraddha ratir bhaktir anukramisyati (SB 3.25.25) 'Speaking with saints about My glories is like an elixir both for the heart and for the ear. This sequentially prompts faith, attraction to the Lord and devotion."



There are sadhaka bhaktas and siddha bhaktas. Sadhaka bhaktas are still growing, so me and others on this forum may be sadhakas, not fully grown, but can a teenager, himself not fully grown, not help his little toddler brother or sister how to walk? In the land of the blind one-eye is king.
Anyone is welcome here to come and and question and/or correct any of the participants on this forum. Nobody here is the big big Guru with unquestionable authority....

Yamaraja, check out Vedabase.net. Very handy.

The point of the verse being...

Come on now! Your the scholar...you would know better than me!

I think the point is very clear...but....I'm just a fool!

YS

Some "points" of this verse that catch my ignorant eye are...

"faultless", "expert", and "SILENT"

YS

I guess, maybe, I should of first asked how many folks consider themselves "devotees"!

If you look at the context, the verse does not aim for any particular point. It is merely a comma-separated list of the various qualities of a devotee, narrated by Mahaprabhu to Sanatana Gosvami. You may wish to consider some of them particularly meaningful, but that doesn't make it the point of the verse really.

Aside that, the verse describes an akincana-bhakta, loosely translated as "a pure devotee". There are many grades of devotees.

Then, as most of us answer "not me", will you start pushing, "then how can you speak on spiritual matters, you should be silent and listen"? This is not the kind of question you'd ask in an assembly of devotees. That is, if you consider this an assembly of devotees to begin with.

I dont consider myself a "devotee"...maybe a "practitioner"...but not a "devotee".

To me a "devotee" is one who has become "devoted" to the Lord. To be devoted to the Lord shouldnt be something cheap. The 26 qualities of a devotee should be met before one can consider themsleves a devotee! Am I wrong?

Im not even initiated, aspiring, but still searching and maybe once I have taken that step...I may become a little more devoted...but again...

YS

Sorry, Madhava, normally one should not repeat posts, but this time I find it fitting ....

There are sadhaka bhaktas and siddha bhaktas. Sadhaka bhaktas are still growing, so me and others on this forum may be sadhakas, not fully grown, but can a teenager, himself not fully grown, not help his little toddler brother or sister how to walk? In the land of the blind one-eye is king.
Anyone is welcome here to come and and question and/or correct any of the participants on this forum. Nobody here is the big big Guru with unquestionable authority....

How about we "discuss" the "points" of this verse and this verse only!

What are everyone's "realizations" on the fact that Mahaprabhu has set these "qualifications"...atleast in this verse?

YS

You can't really discuss a single verse without considering the context.



No, that is no "minimum qualification" there. It's obvious if you look at the context. It's just a list of qualities which will come to manifest in a "pure devotee".

I remember very distinctly having once read a division of these qualities into svarUpa-lakSaNa and taTastha-lakSana, kRSNaika-zaraNa (surrendered to Krishna alone) being the svarUpa-lakSaNa (intrinsic, defining characteristic), and the rest being taTastha-lakSaNa (marginal characteristics). Can anyone remember a source for this?

Would that be Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu-bindhu?

The terms are used there in evaluating the svarupa-laksana and tatastha-laksana of uttama-bhakti. I'm hoping to find the text where the same division is applied for the qualities of a devotee.

Or download them.

Yeah, like what's the difference between an akinchana and a niskincana?