It was nice to hear how the devotees in this meeting were deliberating.
It does make sense that full-time devotees should not get “salaries” in the sense of saying, “my service is conditioned on you paying me a certain sum.” That would seem to interrupt the mood of unmotivated service.
One of the more interesting aspects of the discussion is that devotee maintenance should actually be adequate and include provisions for health care and possibly even sufficient “walking around money”.
The point Ravindra Swarupa raised about not being overly dependent on the mercy of another and not depriving full-time devotees of a certain sense of intelligent self determination (I do not remember exactly how he put it) was very good. It was inspiring to see how, in spite of approving the general proposition, RSD raised these important counter-considerations.
Another even more interesting aspect was that the level of devotee maintenance for dependent devotees should not be based on rank and position: the TP should not get a better class of maintenance than the pot washer. I am not sure I completely accept this, although I do appreciate the mood of spiritual communism that inspires it. It just seems that a highly-qualified, skilled, capable devotee should have the facility he or she actually needs, even if that means a private car or better consumer electronics and furniture. But maybe that is handled by the statement that “maintenance” is based on individual need, not want, and is not the same for every person. [i.e., maybe the highly skilled devotee “needs” more because he/she can properly utilize more?]
The larger discussion of whether famous preachers should be required to turn over personal donations is a little off-topic. This was really a discussion of whether temples should pay salaries to full-time devotees. What devotees should do with “individual donations” is a big, separate issue (as is the issue of what full-time devotees should do if they inherit or receive gifts from family and friends).
I did not quite understand the concern that the 94% (or whatever) of devotees who maintain themselves outside the temple might feel “left out” by this resolution. Why would they feel left out? Because they might feel that those who “surrender” to the communal temple economy will be considered more authentic or committed than they are?
I would like to see the final resolution, including the addendum about the other 94%.
Personally I find the title for this article, “wages for sages” a little misleading and could affect devotees’ assessment of this subject matter. Why include the word ’sages’? Just because it rhymes? To my understand the word ’sage’ implies the renounced order: simple life, hermit, sannyas etc. Such people are not suitable for ‘wages’. However, Temple Presidents, Vice Presidents, pot-washers and so forth are generally a different type of devotee who have homes, families and a little integrity to maintain.
I am on an ISKCON ’salary/ DM’. My wife also works but outside of ISKCON. Guess what, even though she is new to the country and works less hours than me, still she earns more.
I am neither a sage or someone who lives the life of luxury, simply a devotee who has taken an opportunity so I can do my best for Srila Prabhupada’s movement but also pay for my ‘bread and butter’.
In U.S. law, there is a “ministerial exception” to the minimum wage, maximum hours and reporting requirements of the Federal NLRA (National Labor Relations Act), and there are varioius State Law religious exceptions to those State labor regulations that are not preempted by the Federal Act.
The “ministerial exception” is broadly interpreted and is rooted in constitutionally protected freedom of religion as well as statutes that have been passed to protect religious organizations from encroaching government regulation.
When I say “broadly interpreted”, I mean that all devotee positions that require some spiritual practice and education would probably fall into the exception. Even a devotee who sweeps the floor, if he or she lives at the temple and is required to follow the principles and chant 16 rounds, is almost certainly subject to the “ministerial exception.”
Such workers fall outside all the ordinary wages and hours requirements.
However, other workers, lay workers (if we have any), who do not receive religious training but are simply employed in some labor, have to be paid minimum wage, overtime, etc.
There was a major U.S. Supreme Court case (“Tony and Alamo”?) back in, I think, the 1980s, in which a nonprofit that ran gas stations, hog farms, thrift stores, etc., and employed ex-substance abusers and homeless in order to rehabilitate them, were found to have violated Federal minimum wage laws. In spite of the “associates” protesting that they really were volunteering as part of their rehabilitation or therapy, the Supreme Court decided they were “employees” within the meaning of the NLRA.
However, Salvation Army “Captains” who ran thrift stores, and even administrative workers in various religious organizations, were found to be “ministers” who are outside the reach of the NLRA.
[Caveat: I am writing from memory and this should not be a substitute for an updated and thoroughly researched legal opinion]
A while ago, a homeless-type guy who used to wash pots at a California temple in exchange for a small hourly sum, actually filed a Labor Commission complaint for back wages, saying he had been “employed” at less than the minimum wage. The California Labor Commissioner decided he was a religious worker subject to a California statutory exception and dismissed his claim.
This guy liked to dance in kirtan and was doing “seva”. If he had just been publicly hired the outcome likely would be different.
It is not a question of the detail of how much one receives, indeed there will certainly be instances when a maintenance would be in fact higher than a salary. Rather it is the principle of what the salary/maintenance is based on, is it based on need or is it based on want/rank. Also the nature of a salary is that it is contractually based – I work/serve a certain amount of hours and I get paid a certain amount money. Maintenance is a fixed amount based on need and then I agree to do the needful.
As for the title, yes it is catchy but in essence all initiated devotees (as well as others), are essentially sages in the general sense of that term.
Here is an interesting anecdote from a few years ago related to a salaried devotee on Janmastami when traditionally devotees stay up until midnight, attend arati and then take prasadam. This devotee was manning a preaching booth up until shortly before arati and after the feast they toddled home as everyone else did. The the next morning they dropped into the treasurer’s office reminding the treasurer that they had done 7 hours overtime yesterday and as it was ‘after office’ hours, time and a half rates apply!
I want to share with you several perspectives on this. First, we need servitors, even if imperfect, to maintain a mission. Often of Maths are dealing with very poor individuals who come to serve in their ashrams. It is a great hardship for poor Indian families to have a potential breadwinner got to the ashrama, making them unavailable to serve their poor families. In some instances, due to the necessity of manpower issues to maintain a temple/guesthouse program, some Maths will give some money to these individuals for their families. It is a practical issue. If there was an abundance of manpower that came to serve free of family obligations, that would not be necessary. I am not sure, but I think that a similar situation “may” exist in ISKCON amongst some of the Indians who go out to make life members for the society. Again, I am not certain of this, but the situation is similar to that above.
We are not worshippers of money. It is a practical issue if some funds have to be utilized to help maintain bhaktas so that they can serve in the temple. Niranjana Prabhu did a wonderful service in Los Angeles for many years cultivating the life members in the Los Angeles area, and was for a number of years maintained with a stipend or salary for the same. One has to pay for rent, gas, etc. etc. etc. We should not think that it is sinful to compensate important bhaktas for vital services needed in the ashramas when lack of such compensation might terminate such opportunity of service.
The practical rationale is given by Srila Rupa Goswami: Accept whatever is favorable for the discharge of devotional service, and reject that which is unfavorable for the discharge of devotional service. Again, we are not worshippers of money. Gold and a Rock are considered equally by a “sage”. False renunciation is not considered ukta-vairagya. You all understand this: What can be favorably used in Krishna’s service, even it may be “material”, should not be rejected or renounced. The whole issue is summarized by Krishna in His Bhagavad Gita, that in sacrifice (in this case Sankirtan Yajna) all merges into transcendence. That is, every thing is strung upon Krishna like pearls on a thread…nothing is separate from Krishna. Pusta Krishna das
The one anecdote that sticks out in my mind (but was not mentioned in this meeting) is from the 1975 GBC meeting. The devotees were suggesting to hire Karandhar Prabhu to run Spiritual Sky for some small salary. (I think it was $5,000 per year, which Atreya Rshi pointed out was much less than a market rate, even in those days, for the kind of executive work Karandhar would do.)
Karandhar had been running BBT, Spiritual Sky, L.A. temple, doing so much important leadership and administrative service, but then in late 1974 he left all of a sudden, which was a big shock to many devotees. Now, a short time later, he wanted to come back and take over some of his responsibilities, but he wanted a contract so he could maintain a modicum of independence. Srila Prabhupada rejected the idea.
I cannot be sure of all the reasons behind Prabhupada’s decision, but it seems he did not want to introduce this kind of business mentality among the devotees, that I do my service in exchange for pay. The surrendered mentality is, I do my service out of love, and I am satisfied with somehow keeping my body and soul together based on what comes naturally or by Krishna’s grace.
Prabhupada used to preach like this a lot, that big elephants are eating tons of food in the forest, and millions of ants are eating every day, by nature’s arrangement, (like “lilies of the field”), and if we are Krishna’s devotees why should we be in anxiety about where are material necessities will come from?
Narada Muni says that, just as material misery comes of its own accord, though nobody endeavors for it, so material happiness will come without separate endeavor, so we can spend our complete energy in searching after Krishna.
On the other hand, these seem like very high ideals. Especially householders who have dependent children often feel like it would be irresponsible to not have a “guaranteed” source of income (as if anything is guaranteed). The doubt lingers that the fully surrendered, renounced mentality is only sustainable for very advanced devotees.
Happily, Ravindra Swarup raised the doubts that must be in every “old time” devotee’s mind. What if there is too much scarcity in the temple? What if the temple authorities give less “maintenance” than we really require? What if this “doctrine” kills our money-making intelligence but not our bodily concept? And what if it forces us to pretend to be more advanced in renunciation and sense control than we really are?
I agree with your implication- -that devotees asking for overtime etc does appear to be crossing the line and missing the point.
Regarding the use of the word ’sage’, well its nice to see all serious devotees as such, although I must add that an online dictionary definition does not include younger devotees:
Noun
a person, esp. an old man, regarded as being very wise
Adjective
very wise or knowledgeable, esp. as the result of age or experience
I guess devotees in general are wise before their time, all due to the knowledge and experience they have received via the teachings of our ever well wisher Srila Prabhupada!
One correction in my writing in #7 above, I believe the LA bhakta who organized the Life Membership program and weekly meetings around LA is Nirantara das, not Niranjana das. I know Nirantara das personally, and he did so much to promote the hugh LA program amongst the large Indian population there. I don’t know all the details but I know that he was very disappointed to lose that stipend which enabled him to promote Krishna consciousness amongst the surrounding areas, coordinating the life membership program and local programs. Krishna consciousness is not a democracy. The leadership at the local levels has to make the proper decisions to facilitate the work of the ashram. Householders have different monetary needs than brahmacharis. We can always learn from mistakes, and we should not place petty concerns over the engagement of vaishnavas in service. Just think how difficult it is to make bhaktas, and think how difficult it is to find competent preachers. Hare Krishna.
We have talked about “wages” but not much about property ownership and land.
ISKCON has been trying for years, with a not-so-great track record, to establish ideal devotional farm communities which should be a model of utopian daivi varnasrama society. How can we improve?
I am wondering in this connection whether, rather than having only collective farms, with everyone being “maintained” by the community, a better model would be to have many yoeman devotee farmers (vaisyas) cultivating their own plots and caring for their own animals.
[Successful farmers might even maintain field hands or housekeepers who are willing to serve for room and board and a sense of being protected and maintained by good masters.]
I am not suggesting that ISKCON should give away farmland to individuals. Hopefully, they could purchase their own land in rural devotee communies, near the temple-owned lands.
But if ISKCON owns farmland that is not being put to productive use, maybe we could *lease* that land to devotee-farmers who have the initiative to try to make a successful go of working it, and possibly give them an opportunity to buy their farms at some point down the line. [Zoning agreements such as CCRs (“conditions, covenants and restrictions”) could be used to prevent animal slaughter or intoxication on such lands in perpetuity, which in turn would discourage transfer to non-devotees.]
For all I know, ISKCON farms are already doing this. I have never been a farm devotee and do not even know my way around a small garden. I do not know what is going on in ISKCON’s agricultural sector around the world.
It just seems that, even though everything belongs to the Lord, many individual devotees for better or worse may be more inspired to take care of the things they can call their own. Working on one’s own house, land, farm, real property improvements, could inspire a valued type of devotee.
[And we could help each other with barn raisings and so on, like Amish communities do.]
If vaisyas are “active unintelligent”, I think that means they are active to work hard for their own sense of personal economic development, and that society can make use of that mentality to create a class of wealth-producers who pay taxes and give charity as appropriate to other classes and orders.
I am just sort of thinking out loud and do not know about the economics of ISKCON’s farm communities.
I find I am not able to follow the discussion as the sound is not clear. Can we not have it in written form?
Ys TS
Dear Maharaja,
If someone was willing and able to transcribe it we would be delighted to post it in written form.
Your servant, Praghosa dasa
It was nice to hear how the devotees in this meeting were deliberating.
It does make sense that full-time devotees should not get “salaries” in the sense of saying, “my service is conditioned on you paying me a certain sum.” That would seem to interrupt the mood of unmotivated service.
One of the more interesting aspects of the discussion is that devotee maintenance should actually be adequate and include provisions for health care and possibly even sufficient “walking around money”.
The point Ravindra Swarupa raised about not being overly dependent on the mercy of another and not depriving full-time devotees of a certain sense of intelligent self determination (I do not remember exactly how he put it) was very good. It was inspiring to see how, in spite of approving the general proposition, RSD raised these important counter-considerations.
Another even more interesting aspect was that the level of devotee maintenance for dependent devotees should not be based on rank and position: the TP should not get a better class of maintenance than the pot washer. I am not sure I completely accept this, although I do appreciate the mood of spiritual communism that inspires it. It just seems that a highly-qualified, skilled, capable devotee should have the facility he or she actually needs, even if that means a private car or better consumer electronics and furniture. But maybe that is handled by the statement that “maintenance” is based on individual need, not want, and is not the same for every person. [i.e., maybe the highly skilled devotee “needs” more because he/she can properly utilize more?]
The larger discussion of whether famous preachers should be required to turn over personal donations is a little off-topic. This was really a discussion of whether temples should pay salaries to full-time devotees. What devotees should do with “individual donations” is a big, separate issue (as is the issue of what full-time devotees should do if they inherit or receive gifts from family and friends).
I did not quite understand the concern that the 94% (or whatever) of devotees who maintain themselves outside the temple might feel “left out” by this resolution. Why would they feel left out? Because they might feel that those who “surrender” to the communal temple economy will be considered more authentic or committed than they are?
I would like to see the final resolution, including the addendum about the other 94%.
Personally I find the title for this article, “wages for sages” a little misleading and could affect devotees’ assessment of this subject matter. Why include the word ’sages’? Just because it rhymes? To my understand the word ’sage’ implies the renounced order: simple life, hermit, sannyas etc. Such people are not suitable for ‘wages’. However, Temple Presidents, Vice Presidents, pot-washers and so forth are generally a different type of devotee who have homes, families and a little integrity to maintain.
I am on an ISKCON ’salary/ DM’. My wife also works but outside of ISKCON. Guess what, even though she is new to the country and works less hours than me, still she earns more.
I am neither a sage or someone who lives the life of luxury, simply a devotee who has taken an opportunity so I can do my best for Srila Prabhupada’s movement but also pay for my ‘bread and butter’.
In U.S. law, there is a “ministerial exception” to the minimum wage, maximum hours and reporting requirements of the Federal NLRA (National Labor Relations Act), and there are varioius State Law religious exceptions to those State labor regulations that are not preempted by the Federal Act.
The “ministerial exception” is broadly interpreted and is rooted in constitutionally protected freedom of religion as well as statutes that have been passed to protect religious organizations from encroaching government regulation.
When I say “broadly interpreted”, I mean that all devotee positions that require some spiritual practice and education would probably fall into the exception. Even a devotee who sweeps the floor, if he or she lives at the temple and is required to follow the principles and chant 16 rounds, is almost certainly subject to the “ministerial exception.”
Such workers fall outside all the ordinary wages and hours requirements.
However, other workers, lay workers (if we have any), who do not receive religious training but are simply employed in some labor, have to be paid minimum wage, overtime, etc.
There was a major U.S. Supreme Court case (“Tony and Alamo”?) back in, I think, the 1980s, in which a nonprofit that ran gas stations, hog farms, thrift stores, etc., and employed ex-substance abusers and homeless in order to rehabilitate them, were found to have violated Federal minimum wage laws. In spite of the “associates” protesting that they really were volunteering as part of their rehabilitation or therapy, the Supreme Court decided they were “employees” within the meaning of the NLRA.
However, Salvation Army “Captains” who ran thrift stores, and even administrative workers in various religious organizations, were found to be “ministers” who are outside the reach of the NLRA.
[Caveat: I am writing from memory and this should not be a substitute for an updated and thoroughly researched legal opinion]
A while ago, a homeless-type guy who used to wash pots at a California temple in exchange for a small hourly sum, actually filed a Labor Commission complaint for back wages, saying he had been “employed” at less than the minimum wage. The California Labor Commissioner decided he was a religious worker subject to a California statutory exception and dismissed his claim.
This guy liked to dance in kirtan and was doing “seva”. If he had just been publicly hired the outcome likely would be different.
Dear Radha Mohan prabhu,
It is not a question of the detail of how much one receives, indeed there will certainly be instances when a maintenance would be in fact higher than a salary. Rather it is the principle of what the salary/maintenance is based on, is it based on need or is it based on want/rank. Also the nature of a salary is that it is contractually based – I work/serve a certain amount of hours and I get paid a certain amount money. Maintenance is a fixed amount based on need and then I agree to do the needful.
As for the title, yes it is catchy but in essence all initiated devotees (as well as others), are essentially sages in the general sense of that term.
Here is an interesting anecdote from a few years ago related to a salaried devotee on Janmastami when traditionally devotees stay up until midnight, attend arati and then take prasadam. This devotee was manning a preaching booth up until shortly before arati and after the feast they toddled home as everyone else did. The the next morning they dropped into the treasurer’s office reminding the treasurer that they had done 7 hours overtime yesterday and as it was ‘after office’ hours, time and a half rates apply!
Hare Krishna!
I want to share with you several perspectives on this. First, we need servitors, even if imperfect, to maintain a mission. Often of Maths are dealing with very poor individuals who come to serve in their ashrams. It is a great hardship for poor Indian families to have a potential breadwinner got to the ashrama, making them unavailable to serve their poor families. In some instances, due to the necessity of manpower issues to maintain a temple/guesthouse program, some Maths will give some money to these individuals for their families. It is a practical issue. If there was an abundance of manpower that came to serve free of family obligations, that would not be necessary. I am not sure, but I think that a similar situation “may” exist in ISKCON amongst some of the Indians who go out to make life members for the society. Again, I am not certain of this, but the situation is similar to that above.
We are not worshippers of money. It is a practical issue if some funds have to be utilized to help maintain bhaktas so that they can serve in the temple. Niranjana Prabhu did a wonderful service in Los Angeles for many years cultivating the life members in the Los Angeles area, and was for a number of years maintained with a stipend or salary for the same. One has to pay for rent, gas, etc. etc. etc. We should not think that it is sinful to compensate important bhaktas for vital services needed in the ashramas when lack of such compensation might terminate such opportunity of service.
The practical rationale is given by Srila Rupa Goswami: Accept whatever is favorable for the discharge of devotional service, and reject that which is unfavorable for the discharge of devotional service. Again, we are not worshippers of money. Gold and a Rock are considered equally by a “sage”. False renunciation is not considered ukta-vairagya. You all understand this: What can be favorably used in Krishna’s service, even it may be “material”, should not be rejected or renounced. The whole issue is summarized by Krishna in His Bhagavad Gita, that in sacrifice (in this case Sankirtan Yajna) all merges into transcendence. That is, every thing is strung upon Krishna like pearls on a thread…nothing is separate from Krishna. Pusta Krishna das
The one anecdote that sticks out in my mind (but was not mentioned in this meeting) is from the 1975 GBC meeting. The devotees were suggesting to hire Karandhar Prabhu to run Spiritual Sky for some small salary. (I think it was $5,000 per year, which Atreya Rshi pointed out was much less than a market rate, even in those days, for the kind of executive work Karandhar would do.)
Karandhar had been running BBT, Spiritual Sky, L.A. temple, doing so much important leadership and administrative service, but then in late 1974 he left all of a sudden, which was a big shock to many devotees. Now, a short time later, he wanted to come back and take over some of his responsibilities, but he wanted a contract so he could maintain a modicum of independence. Srila Prabhupada rejected the idea.
I cannot be sure of all the reasons behind Prabhupada’s decision, but it seems he did not want to introduce this kind of business mentality among the devotees, that I do my service in exchange for pay. The surrendered mentality is, I do my service out of love, and I am satisfied with somehow keeping my body and soul together based on what comes naturally or by Krishna’s grace.
Prabhupada used to preach like this a lot, that big elephants are eating tons of food in the forest, and millions of ants are eating every day, by nature’s arrangement, (like “lilies of the field”), and if we are Krishna’s devotees why should we be in anxiety about where are material necessities will come from?
Narada Muni says that, just as material misery comes of its own accord, though nobody endeavors for it, so material happiness will come without separate endeavor, so we can spend our complete energy in searching after Krishna.
On the other hand, these seem like very high ideals. Especially householders who have dependent children often feel like it would be irresponsible to not have a “guaranteed” source of income (as if anything is guaranteed). The doubt lingers that the fully surrendered, renounced mentality is only sustainable for very advanced devotees.
Happily, Ravindra Swarup raised the doubts that must be in every “old time” devotee’s mind. What if there is too much scarcity in the temple? What if the temple authorities give less “maintenance” than we really require? What if this “doctrine” kills our money-making intelligence but not our bodily concept? And what if it forces us to pretend to be more advanced in renunciation and sense control than we really are?
Dear Praghosa prabhu
Thanks for your personalised response.
I agree with your implication- -that devotees asking for overtime etc does appear to be crossing the line and missing the point.
Regarding the use of the word ’sage’, well its nice to see all serious devotees as such, although I must add that an online dictionary definition does not include younger devotees:
Noun
a person, esp. an old man, regarded as being very wise
Adjective
very wise or knowledgeable, esp. as the result of age or experience
Dear Radha Mohan prabhu,
I guess devotees in general are wise before their time, all due to the knowledge and experience they have received via the teachings of our ever well wisher Srila Prabhupada!
Your servant, Praghosa dasa.
One correction in my writing in #7 above, I believe the LA bhakta who organized the Life Membership program and weekly meetings around LA is Nirantara das, not Niranjana das. I know Nirantara das personally, and he did so much to promote the hugh LA program amongst the large Indian population there. I don’t know all the details but I know that he was very disappointed to lose that stipend which enabled him to promote Krishna consciousness amongst the surrounding areas, coordinating the life membership program and local programs. Krishna consciousness is not a democracy. The leadership at the local levels has to make the proper decisions to facilitate the work of the ashram. Householders have different monetary needs than brahmacharis. We can always learn from mistakes, and we should not place petty concerns over the engagement of vaishnavas in service. Just think how difficult it is to make bhaktas, and think how difficult it is to find competent preachers. Hare Krishna.
Pusta Krishna das
We have talked about “wages” but not much about property ownership and land.
ISKCON has been trying for years, with a not-so-great track record, to establish ideal devotional farm communities which should be a model of utopian daivi varnasrama society. How can we improve?
I am wondering in this connection whether, rather than having only collective farms, with everyone being “maintained” by the community, a better model would be to have many yoeman devotee farmers (vaisyas) cultivating their own plots and caring for their own animals.
[Successful farmers might even maintain field hands or housekeepers who are willing to serve for room and board and a sense of being protected and maintained by good masters.]
I am not suggesting that ISKCON should give away farmland to individuals. Hopefully, they could purchase their own land in rural devotee communies, near the temple-owned lands.
But if ISKCON owns farmland that is not being put to productive use, maybe we could *lease* that land to devotee-farmers who have the initiative to try to make a successful go of working it, and possibly give them an opportunity to buy their farms at some point down the line. [Zoning agreements such as CCRs (“conditions, covenants and restrictions”) could be used to prevent animal slaughter or intoxication on such lands in perpetuity, which in turn would discourage transfer to non-devotees.]
For all I know, ISKCON farms are already doing this. I have never been a farm devotee and do not even know my way around a small garden. I do not know what is going on in ISKCON’s agricultural sector around the world.
It just seems that, even though everything belongs to the Lord, many individual devotees for better or worse may be more inspired to take care of the things they can call their own. Working on one’s own house, land, farm, real property improvements, could inspire a valued type of devotee.
[And we could help each other with barn raisings and so on, like Amish communities do.]
If vaisyas are “active unintelligent”, I think that means they are active to work hard for their own sense of personal economic development, and that society can make use of that mentality to create a class of wealth-producers who pay taxes and give charity as appropriate to other classes and orders.
I am just sort of thinking out loud and do not know about the economics of ISKCON’s farm communities.
Any comments?