At one point, I wrote about the virtue of living a ‘simple’ life. Later, as I began to accumulate things based on the necessities of place, time, and need, I realized that even this ideal of simplicity is relative. Upon reflecting on certain aspects of my life, I would often begin writing thoughts shaped by my personal experience. However, as I wrote, the reflection would slowly evolve into an idealistic view of life—one that I could never fully practice. Does this make such idealistic writing hypocritical, since I cannot live by it? Not necessarily. This, too, is a relativistic judgment. All kinds of idealism, though they may stem from reflections on real life, reveal the soul’s longing. Such ideals can challenge the writer and inspire some readers.
— Gurukulam, August 09, 2008
Sharala once asked a very genuine question: “If an ashram stands for equality, why is the servant fed after everyone else has eaten?” Although I gave a practical answer, it highlighted the ongoing tension between idealism and reality. Whether in an ashram, gurukulam, home, or workplace, we strive to promote the ideal of ‘equality.’ Yet, in reality, people are not treated equally, not just because of their roles (work, responsibilities, etc.), but also due to their status. In many places, such discrimination is unavoidable. However, in spaces like a gurukulam or ashram, the ideal of equality should at least be upheld.
The challenge in implementing such idealism is that it often depends not on those who are in a position to enforce it, but on how others respond to it. For example, in a gurukulam or ashram, the acharya or swamiji may treat the workers and others (students, shishyas, visitors) equally, even feeding the workers alongside everyone else. But we must remember one crucial fact: a laborer, who works only for a salary, is not personally invested in helping others practice their idealism. Experience has shown that workers may leave abruptly, and we sometimes have to let them go due to issues. Additionally, since many workers are not highly educated, when treated as equals, they may take undue advantage and show this through their actions. This, too, we have seen in real life.
We could argue that God never discriminates against us because of our failures (lack of understanding, etc.) and continues to show grace and mercy as always. However, the difference is that those who understand and respond to that grace feel remorse when they recognize their disobedience. In contrast, we cannot expect the same kind of remorse or repentance from a worker who has neither understood nor responded to the kindness shown by their employer. Both the employer and the worker know their relationship is based on the exchange of service and salary, not on kindness or commitment. Of course, there are exceptions where workers remain loyal until death, and employers treat them as family. Yet, the tension between idealism and reality remains an unavoidable aspect of life, regardless of where we try to implement it.
In the past, at our ashram, I once insisted that our helper join us for a meal. However, he politely refused, preferring to take his plate and eat in his favorite spot—under the banyan tree. It’s actually a much better place to eat than in the dining hall, surrounded by walls, though there’s always the risk of birds dropping something on the food, making it unusable. When this topic came up, I said, “Let him eat where he feels comfortable. We don’t discriminate, but we must accept and respect that everyone has their own comfort zones.”
— db, Gurukulam, November 30, 2008
Leave a Reply