unpublished comment to http://www.dandavats.com/?p=6541
by ccd
I found it particularly interesting to hear a definition where, as it seemed, such a clear line was drawn between those who are ‘maintained’ and ‘others’ e.g. congregational devotees. I welcomed some later comments where a lady (I think Malati) stressed that the definition was too much about ‘dependent’ devotees in direct contrast to congregation. Quite a few comments, especially when devotees were trying to highlight what contribution ‘non-maintained’ devotees can do, sounded as if they were limiting what type of services they can do. It almost suggested that if one does not reside in the temple, one can not be a preacher, can not be a pujari and can not be kirtaniya:-). A very notable I must say discovery, as I always thought that such segregation is highly counterproductive. Well at least we are not to be kirtaniyas for hire..
It will be highly unlikely to see this being fully resolved, but it appears that the movement in the right direction is being made. The danger is of course is if only semantics are changed and instead of the word ’salary’ a different word is being used – ‘dependents allowance’. Just by calling something differently, the essence will not change. To change the essence, one needs to encourage unmotivated, enthusiastic and ultimately unpaid service, but any step in that direction is a good thing, as you can not measure devotional service in dollars (not even if you follow the suggestion of Pragosha:-) to convert it all in gold as soon as possible). At the same time it has to be clearly an attractive feature – both materially and spiritually, to live in the temple.
I would suggest as a solution that salaries/maintenance allowances are not awarded by the temple or temple authority in the form of a contract, but rather donated by the congregational community board on a monthly basis. It will not only make community more involved, but will create (as suggested by Ravindra Swarup) an independent brahamana type of sevaks, not a sudra-like dependents.
It would be a nice thing to hear the question “Why Prabhupada was so specific and said, repeatedly, that no salaries should be paid?” in discussion. I guess if one answers it correctly, the solution is just around a corner.
From a more practical perspective, even it was touched by the discussion, the key should be not how to retain devotees in the temple (pensions / maintenance), but how to invite and engage devotees who are outside (96% that is). Good direction at 4%. What about the rest?
