Fear of Replacement/Displacement

Following from the end of the previous entry, where I was talking about the phenomenon of not always focusing on developing the human and devotional potential we already have, I want to discuss one possible cause: the fear of being surpassed by these people.

Yes, many members of our congregation--although they might not have experienced the strict life of asceticism afforded to ashram residents--they are actually extremely brilliant and resourceful people; often more experienced, prepared and functional of many of our temple residents.

Even if they are not "better" than the temple devotees, just the fact that they may be on the same level (in terms of faith, intelligence, age, communication skills, earning power, dedication to spiritual advancement, etc.) constitutes an unspoken threat to some of the ashram residents.

Some temple devotees might assume that living and serving in a formal ISKCON building automatically qualifies them as "spiritually more" than the home-based devotees. Of course we would be hardly pressed to find scriptural support for such a view; it would be hard (if not impossible) to find anything in Srila Prabhupada's books that indicates that the place where one sleeps determines the person's advancement in bhakti.

Of course, of course, the opportunity of living in close, daily contact with Deities and devotees offers a stupendous chance for growing spiritually, but (just to refresh on the ABC of comprehension), according to Srila Prabhupada in the Preface of the Nectar of Instruction: "Advancement in Krishna consciousness depends on the attitude of the follower."

"But," someone might ask, "living in a temple doesn't demonstrate a higher level of surrender? It doesn't show that that particular follower possesses a better attitude, and therefore he is more advanced?"

Short answer: No, it doesn't.

More elaborate answer: We do respect those that reside in the ashrams of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness; among them some might be very advanced on the path to pure love of God and they might be fully surrendered souls. We don't deny or minimize that. At the same time the fact of taking shelter in a temple is not, by itself, proof of a higher consciousness than that of a home-based devotee. No sastra would support such an idea.

We are not saying or implying that those who live in the temple do so only because they are incapable of functioning outside; this is not our view. At the same time spiritual advancement and the related attitude isn't dependent on where are we based.

Would anyone consider Srila Prabhupada in his grihastha years as less advanced (or possessing a lesser attitude) than his Godbrothers who were then living in the Gaudiya Math temples?

Would anyone consider Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura as "less" in any way of some contemporary sadhu sheltered in an ashram?

And what about Ambarisa Maharaja? What about the Pandavas? The list can go on and on.

"But," someone might argue, "those are exceptional examples! Special souls already situated in the lila!"

Yes, OK, but even if we look around--today--we will see many devotees in our Society, men and women, that while living with their families maintain a high standard of Krishna consciousness and even take important responsibilities in missionary activities.

To refer again to Srila Prabhupada's words, this time in a letter: "Actually there is no difference between devotees living inside the temple and devotees living outside the temple" (to Susan Beckman, 29 September 1972).

In one sense, between two devotees "in good standing" (following their initiation vows and engaging as much as possible in devotional service), one living in the temple and one living at home and maintaining a family, I would be tempted to consider the one living at home as more... reliable. In what sense? Well, he is demonstrating the capacity of maintaining his standards even in relatively disadvantageous circumstances, in the middle of many other responsibilities and challenges. The one in the temple is, yes, also in good shape, but--the doubt may come--would he be able to maintain his Krishna consciousness if he were to move outside the ashrama?

History as shown time and again that many devotees who perform well while inside the temple, once outside slide into a much lower level of consciousness and intensity of absorption.

I think you get the idea I am expressing here: devotees who are performing well as home-based are proving their worth every day, without the various natural support systems offered by cloistered life; those who live inside would have to demonstrate that they can do the same.

Anyway, back to the original point, the fear of replacement. This is not (necessarily) a fear that one's position and service be transferred to another devotee (a home-based one) in the strictly managerial sense. Often is the fear of loosing the grip on the more subtle aspects, the social distinctions of prestige and respect, the aura of extraordinariness that goes with residing in or officially leading a temple.

Sometimes the temple-devotee realizes that another devotee (living outside) is just better situated in many ways: his maturity, his patience, his vision, his organizational skills, his experience, his emotional balance, his humility, his education... (and the list could go on). The temple-devotee feels threatened, thinking that his position is now shaky in front of such a formidable challenge. Even if the home-based devotee doesn't aspire to replace him, the fear generated by the comparison can inspire a subtle ostracism.

Let's remember that Srila Prabhupada in 1977 personally appointed a congregational devotee as GBC! (I am talking of Vasudeva Prabhu, from Fiji.) That was more than thirty years ago, when qualified congregational devotees were much fewer than today. Nowadays, in 2008 (almost 2009) the cultural bias against empowering anyone who lives at home doesn't have any reason to continue existing.

We should learn from the history and the demographics of our movement. Kripamoya Prabhu relates that, in a recent survey of 23 ISKCON initiating spiritual masters, the number of disciples living at home reached 96% percent of the total (and this without considering that among those who took initiation while living in the temple a good percentage, if not the majority, will eventually move outside).

I am simply saying that in our movement there is no theological basis to discriminate: brahminical initiation (and therefore direct access to Deity worship) is open to everyone in the Caitanya Sampradaya. What to speak of other services and responsibility.

Unfortunately the tendency of protecting one's privileged status is intrinsic in conditioned human nature, and it will push one to resist opening up the door of opportunity to qualified candidates. This anartha is not circumscribed to the Indian subcontinent, to such groups as the members of the nityananda-vamsa, "who claim to be direct descendants of Lord Nityananda and therefore worthy of the highest respect for their position . . . They further claimed that the practice and spreading of devotional service belonged only to their particular class" (SB 11.1.5, purport).

Such misplaced pride is also not the monopoly of those "fools and rascals in India who do not allow Western Vaisnavas to enter certain temples" (CC Madhya 16.187, purport).

No, unfortunately this tendency is alive and manifest every time a member of our community is considered less (or treated as less) simply on the basis of his being financially self-sufficient.

We might not have a caste system in ISKCON, not in the commonly understood sense, but I suspect that the caste mentality and the "pride of residence" is still very much burning in some people's heart.

Our movement has to grow beyond this phase and psychic condition; only when we can truly discover the existing human and devotional potential already in front of our eyes we will be able to flourish as a mature community.

Note on the illustration: The hand could belong to a home-based devotee who, although ostracized, maintains his enthusiasm and his loyalty to Srila Prabhupada. The shark could represent... well, decide yourself who that might represent.