Misrepresentation
BY: VEDIC COMPASS
Oct 14, USA (SUN) — Having just read the emotive article, "If we take payment, that is not service. That is business." Whilst I totally agree with the author in principle, I thought it appropriate to point out a few 'indiscrepancies' that appear within it, for the sake of factual representation.
I know personally for a fact that the Guru/GBC (Sivarama Swami), being quoted as advocating wages for the grihasta devotees who served at Bhaktivedanta Manor at that time, does not and never has approved or sanctioned such.
To my knowledge and experience which goes back to and includes that period of time the author is referring to (I was also out there getting wet), Maharaja has always made a very clear distinction between the two VERY DIFFERENT concepts of 'devotee maintenance' and 'wages/salaries'. (Please refer to his views on the Dandavats.com 'wages for sages' discussion).
The idea of a temple maintaining skilled devotees who have also at one time been out there collecting for that very same temple, seems not only quite reasonable, but also legitimate. Especially when ISKCON is often accused of neglecting and rejecting its valuable people once they 'pass their sell by date'.
(Surely it is, or should be, a universally desired aspiration for all devotees to be comprehensively protected, supported and maintained within Srila Prabhupada's 'house' if in anyway possible..?)
The author suggests that the 'official line', the argument given, for spending temple funds on maintaining key devotees continuing to serve within the temple was because it was deemed both a logical and intelligent idea to keep the resources and investments within ISKCON rather than losing them and having to constantly retrain etc. To me that not only makes perfect sense and is very practical, but really, is also rather desirable. It goes without saying: an asset is an 'asset', i.e, 'of value'.
The resources of time, energy, money, dedication and devotion (the austerity the author performed in the cold and damp), all that goes into finding sincere souls out there and bringing them into the shelter of Srila Prabhupada's society. Then the same resources being spent nurturing and training them, all to be lost simply because we felt resentful that there were devotees back inside the temple whilst we were out collecting. I find that a bit narrow and immature.
I would have thought keeping those valuable resources and investments within our society would validate the preaching efforts made by those outreach devotees and prove their efforts were not in vain.
In fact, the author's good fortune in originally becoming connected with Srila Prabhupada and his society is in part as a result of the intelligent administration of affairs back at the HQ, quite often being carried out by those very same 'maintained' devotees.
I know the author's point is chiefly concerned with the inherent contradiction in providing 'wages for sages', as it suggests a business transaction as opposed to unconditional service (and I agree, the concept of wages/salary should be stopped), but we also detect some personal resentment in his writing that really isn't valid or relevant.
All glories to objective, non-emotive assessments.
Hare Krsna.
