I started so many mandali Whatsapp groups with much initial enthusiasm and expectation. I mainly started this to provide online fellowship among the bhaktas scattered in various parts of North India. My main intention was to have fellowship with them all; also to learn and share my thoughts with them so that we can learn from each other about our bhakti based on Muktiveda. Though initially it went well, soon it ended up sharing jokes and other messages which have their place, but not necessary as they do not serve the purpose for which those groups were started. (It was also used for self-promotion but not often—in the name of prayer request) Even one or two bhaktas of those groups personally wrote to me about these kinds of messages which are not beneficial for them. Agreeing with them, I said that there is also a place for some entertainment and general knowledge.
But like any other structure—whether physical or digital, soon it began to go away from the main purpose. I tried my best to bring back to the central purpose of learning from each other. At the end when I asked some questions which will help all of us, I found almost no response from any of them. When I saw that these Whatsapp groups are not serving the purpose for which I have created, when I changed the phone number, I almost closed all of them—though I felt very sad about it. Of course, I still continue to keep in touch with some of the members who showed some interest to share their thoughts and ask some questions. But the majority of them never asked or thought of reviving these groups again. Even I sent one request for someone in a particular group to be the ‘administrator’ so that it can continue. But not only none came forward but not even responded to it.
As I was meditating about this I realized that like ‘kabadi kabadi evangelism’ now there exists ‘kabadi kabadi fellowship’. We all know well that, according to Muktiveda, there exists no private bhakti and private God. Similarly we don’t have any ‘private fellowship’ which we can create and sustain on our own terms. We cannot create any fellowship or any kind of community based on common bhakti and expect it to sustain without being constantly nurtured. We cannot create a fire and leave it unkindled (without adding firewood and oxygen) expecting it to remain hidden under the ash so that whenever we want we can just blow a bit air and revive it. Of course, ash will be there, but no hidden fire underneath it. This does not mean that we have to walk away throwing our hands thinking that there is no use. Remove the ash and try to revive the old fire of fellowship and learning from the past experience try to sustain by individual contribution.
Of course, we all have our own limitations and genuine reasons why we cannot be part of that fellowship. Like a member in an invisible mandali, we are happy to remain an invisible member of that fellowship which now exists in the air (or internet). And without doing a top up (recharging the data card), however we try to connect, we won’t get the network. When we have time for emergencies and personal needs (including that of family), we need to set aside and give some priority to sustain these modern day Internet fellowships. Otherwise, it will remain a private Facebook which will always remain a ‘one-man operated’ social network. Of course, you can post your thoughts, but others will join or respond according to their convenience.
Like a family, our bhakti in the Lord should create a family of bhaktas committed to the common cause of giving that fellowship. In this, there should be a collective responsibility and each one should do their dharma. Otherwise, after the fire is dead, there is no point of simply blowing a bit air expecting some hidden fire remain to revive it. And even if we do, only the ash will blow to hurt our eyes. I write this accepting my own failure to do my part (out of frustration). So coming out from the PRIVATE FELLOWSHIP MODE WITHIN FOUR WALL OF YOUR HOME OR ROOM, we need to keep in touch with each other as the modern day life (also media) demands so much of our time in other things—some time at the cost of our bhakti in the Lord.
What Tom Wright says in his commentary on Acts. 14:1-7 is relevant here:
…We have to create, and sustain, communities where this life is being lived in such a way that when we speak of it we are obviously telling the truth. That is the hard part. As long as our churches are places where we struggle to sustain an hour or two’s public worship per week, with ‘real life’ only minimally affected by it, we will indeed end up like a bunch of vaguely religious cows in a field, mooing on Sunday mornings and chewing the cud the rest of the time. No highs and no lows….(p. 26) The gospel might come alive. Vested interests would be challenged, and they would bite back. But we would be on the map once more: the map which Luke is offering us, even as the apostles hurry on once more to the next cities and districts, ready for more highs and more lows in the cause of God’s kingdom.—Acts for Everyone, Part 2, New Delhi, ISPCK, [2002, 2005] 2015, pp. 26-27
Some may find a contradiction between what I wrote in a previous article: What is fellowship? There the context is regretting missing the traditional church fellowship. There is also some difference between ‘personal sadhana’ and devotion’ from ‘private fellowship’. When we all need to have our own personal sadhana both as an individual and as a family, we cannot create any private fellowship without interacting with other bhaktas by any available means.
Of course, any human structure—whether physical or digital–has its own inherent problem. Unless we keep focused with the purpose for which it is created, soon it will drift and get lost not serving the original purpose. And someone should be constantly reminding about it and also warning everyone to fall in line, though he or she will be always misunderstood and even IGNORED. No prophet is respected or accepted in her own home.
The problem with any structure is that in order to keep it alive and useful, we have to create rules and regulations—without which there will be chaos and confusion and it will become a free for all. Then these rules and regulations will create a list of dos and don’ts in implementing them. Finally, they will begin to alienate others who we cannot accept. This alienation of others—because of ideology, will at the end turn towards them alienating each other due to their own interpretation of those rules and regulations. So when we create any structure (physical or mental) we must be prepared for it and someone should play a prophetic role constantly warning the group not to go away from the fundamentals.
Thus several times what was beginning in spirit will end in flesh. Though structures are essential for many reasons, they also become unavoidable evil particularly in the spiritually oriented movements. That’s why I always emphasize decentralizing and localizing the structure as much as possible so that so many unnecessary complications in running a structure could be minimised and even avoided. I also prefer people oriented structures rather than building oriented ones. I know several so-called Christians ashrams and mutts started both in North and South which miserably failed as the energy was spent in running the place for its own sake than using it for the purpose it was created. First, these physical structures were created to serve the people. When it failed, new programs and plans were created in order to run the structure which has no connection with the original ideal and even worst—for commercial purposes to make money out of it. And those who ,out of compulsion, run it find it difficult to involve whole heartedly as they feel that they are spending their time and energy in something to which they were not committed.
One recent case study is enough to highlight it. In Tamilnadu, near Tanjore, one person with sincere motive and vision started an ashram to do contextualization. Though initially it went well, in the long course of time, gradually he realized that that kind of physical structure will never serve that purpose and vision. Then he tried his best to bring new programs in order to keep the place useful and alive. But that also soon failed. The few who joined him to run the place were discouraged as that structure and the rules and regulations which came along with it never helped them to continue to serve as they committed. Now they too are going to leave. With much pain that sincere bhakta finally wrote that the end of contextualization came to an end.
So we all learn to walk on the tightrope keeping a balance between ‘Personal fellowship’ and ‘Private fellowship’. And though we need some kind of structure to serve this purpose, we should constantly remind ourselves not to make it a ‘kabadi kabadi fellowship’.
This I wrote in 2018. Again I tried my best to revive the same mandali group for North in 2023 and again miserably failed. Finally I have decided not to attempt it any more. In the south, though it has not yet been admitted in ICU, still mandalies everywhere [be it physical or internet] are not serving the purpose for which they were created first.
3-04-2018
Leave a Reply