The Obligations of Accepting Service
BY: ROCANA DASA
Feb 20, CANADA (SUN) — Our readers are being kept apprised of the ongoing situation in Germany, as the dialogue unfolds between parties on different sides of the Simhacalam circumstance. As an ex-Temple President during Srila Prabhupada's lila, I find the dynamic quite revealing and I've been giving some thought about what I might do under the circumstances being described.
I'd like to again point out that the Sampradaya Sun is an experiment in the concept of free speech. If one is committed to living in a free society, one should appreciate the benefits of having all parties being given an opportunity to express themselves. Those interested in the discussion can make up their own minds. This freedom of expression is one of the most important ingredients contributing to a health and vibrant community. Leaders of a society who try to control the press for their own personal benefit in the power dynamic do so to the peril of the whole society.
I have often expressed my opinion that ISKCON is transforming into a religion and an institution rather keeping to Srila Prabhupada's original concept of a family, a society, and a spiritual community. In Germany's Simhacalam community, we see the telltale signs of institutionalization.
We can assume that all the readers were born and raised in a family dynamic. In the west it's been a nuclear family rather than the type of extended family we find in India and other places on the planet, which are really more of a natural situation. In either scenario, however, we find the dynamic of families taking care of the family members. Even though they have to deal with the inevitable problems of disease, old-age, and death, still the family members are cared for. The disease factor is always present and may manifest both mentally and physically. There is often incompatibility in terms of the personalities of the family members. But the overall factor is that being part of the family means just that - one is not ejected from the family just because problems arise.
Members of the family are or have in the past been rendering service to the family, and the well-being of the family is the direct result of that service. If one performs service, then those who accepted the service are obliged to reciprocate. In a sense, they become indebted to the server. This applies directly to the parents and other older members of the family. At a certain stage of life, these persons essentially become a burden. Regardless, the family continues to take care of them because over the years, they have given service to the family. This is not much different than a cow that's given milk for its entire life. The cow eventually dries up, and one is then obliged to take care of the cow until it dies a natural death. Considering how much milk the cow has provided, this is the price you ultimately pay for such great benefit.
Within the society that Srila Prabhupada originally established, this principle is now being overlooked. That's one of the reasons the statistics show that very few of Srila Prabhupada's original disciples are still involved in ISKCON, except for the leaders. The leaders can't deny the fact that in the years directly following Srila Prabhupada's departure, those who were accepting disciples and controlling the GBC found it burdensome to have to deal with the godbrothers who weren't allowed to assume such responsibilities and therefore didn't have the power. The godbrothers were far less submissive then the leaders wishes, however, and thus became a burden. Consequently they were driven out, using whatever excuse was readily at hand. They were cast off without any regard for the fact that they'd rendered so much service to Srila Prabhupada and the society. Even if they weren't capable of rendering the same degree of service that they had performed when they were younger, or they weren't getting the same direct results, still the society had an obligation to reciprocate and protect such personalities. Unfortunately, this was not the case. Unless you were closely connected with the leadership and were of direct benefit or service to them, or you were quietly going along and not rocking the boat, you were vulnerable to being ejected from the Spiritual Master's family.
As far as I can see, the scenario we've been privy to in Germany seems to indicate that this very same type of dynamic is in play. The matajis in question have obviously rendered a great deal of service to the temple and to the Deities over the years. The temple authorities are representatives of the Deities, regardless of whether those authorities were there for the long years of service being rendered by the two devotees in question. So regardless of the fact that they have now become annoying or burdensome, the local leaders must take into consideration the debt that the temple owes to them.
There is an unwritten agreement that if you belong to the family, the other members basically have to tolerate you when you become older. While family members may become senile or ornery due to the effects of age, or whatever, still you have to take care of them because if you don't, you're not performing your duty.
Let's keep in mind the circumstances that were described in the first chapter of Bhagavad-gita by Arjuna, and how concerned he was about the family and the effects that the battle would have on the vulnerable members of society. Now it's true that Krsna spoke Bhagavad-gita and the battle took place, but that was because Arjuna got the ultimate sanction from the Lord Himself, and in that way he became except from the reactions. Unless one feels that they are so divinely connected that they can know what Krsna and His nitya-siddha representative, Srila Prabhupada, would do in a situation - which we can safely assume is not the case in Germany -- then it's better to make decisions based on duty. That principle should stand.
In my mind, there's far too much politicizing based on the principle that somehow or other, ISKCON's management structure is the equivalent to the Sampradaya or the parampara. In other words, whatever they do is ultimately sanctioned by Krsna and Srila Prabhupada. Time has clearly proven that not to be the case. That's why the Sampradaya Acaryas have done so much preaching, giving us the knowledge from which we can make decisions based on sastra, not on the speculation that because I'm in a management position, I've been divinely empowered to make decisions and whatever my decisions are, I can assume they're in line with the Sampradaya. This principle only applies to pure devotees, not conditioned souls in some management position. Srila Prabhupada could make such 'management decisions', and we can understand that his decisions are non-different than Krsna. But that's not the case for the rest of us who take any type of responsibility, whether it be a parent or as in Simhacalam's case, a member of a society that is representing the pure devotees.
The leaders of a society like the one Srila Prabhupada envisioned ISKCON to be must make decisions based on the principle that they have a duty to protect those who have sincerely served Krsna and the Sampradaya Acaryas. If they don't do that, then they will personally take the reaction and the society in general will deteriorate. Every time you decide to exclude someone, the remaining members of the family will immediately feel insecure and vulnerable. They know it could also happen to them, so they're no longer willing to give 100%. They always feel they have to protect themselves and have their own security blanket in place. This takes away from the overall effort as well as the dynamics that are required to preach Krsna consciousness and live in Krsna consciousness. This was the principle during the time when Srila Prabhupada was physically present with us. Everyone gave 100%. No one had their own separate bank accounts. Everyone thought that they were going to be part of ISKCON for the rest of their life, and the people above them were going to treat them properly and appreciate their service and effort. They thought they were going to be protected. Of course, to a great extent that didn't take place, and that dynamic is one of the primary reasons why ISKCON isn't what Srila Prabhupada envisioned it would be, some 31 years later.
The principle of everyone being protected has to be instilled in the society, and particularly in the minds of the leaders. Without it, the society is bound to fail. ISKCON becoming a religion and an institution is evidence of that failure.
