When someone we guide errs, how do we judge whether to discipline them and how much?
Understanding a person’s character is very difficult. When somebody does something wrong, how much should we hold them responsible?
At a basic level, when dealing with people, we have two approaches: positive and negative. On the positive side, we give empowerment. Empowerment means authorizing someone to take responsibilities—for example, giving classes, leading kirtan, or taking care of devotees. On the negative side, we give punishment.
Some may think that withholding empowerment itself is a punishment. But generally, punishment means taking something away, whereas empowerment is giving something positive. For example, if someone is misusing their phone, a form of punishment could be restricting their phone usage.
The first principle is to set clear expectations for empowerment. These expectations must be realistic. If someone wants to take up a service, they need to meet certain standards. If they fail to meet them, they cannot perform that service. Once expectations are clear, it is less likely that the person will feel targeted personally.
How much punishment to give is a more delicate question. Generally, empowerment cannot be granted without a basic level of impulse control. This principle applies everywhere. For example, a policeman who is short-tempered and abuses his authority may be reassigned to a desk job rather than immediately fired. The empowerment—the ability to interact with the public—is withdrawn until he can demonstrate accountability.
Similarly, if a preacher behaves inappropriately with others, they cannot continue in a leadership role. They may remain a devotee, but empowerment in leadership requires a certain level of self-control.
Where it gets tricky is determining how much punishment is appropriate. Empowerment can be taken away, but excessive punishment may lead the person to give up bhakti entirely, which can worsen their conditionings.
Another consideration is whether the wrongdoing affects others or oneself. For example:
- Approaching a woman inappropriately in the community affects others.
- Watching pornography mainly affects oneself.
Self-harm may not disqualify someone from being a devotee, but it may disqualify them from leadership roles depending on its impact on others. For instance, stealing Mahaprasad is wrong, but stealing from ordinary households or shops is a bigger problem. The severity of punishment depends on the harm caused to others and oneself.
Other factors include:
- Remorse: Does the person feel regret for their actions?
- Reform: Are they making efforts to improve themselves?
If there is no remorse and no effort at reform, severe punishment may be necessary. If there is remorse but no immediate reform, a reduction in empowerment may be appropriate—for example, assigning tasks that do not involve interaction with others, such as graphic design or remote work.
Technology today can both help and hinder people in managing their conditionings. Constant exposure to temptation can make self-control very difficult, especially for younger generations. Therefore, understanding and empathy are important, alongside clear standards for empowerment and careful consideration of punishment.
In summary:
- Empowerment should come with clear expectations.
- Punishment should be based on whether the wrongdoing affects others or oneself, and on the person’s remorse and willingness to reform.
Finally, in situations where there are more responsibilities than qualified people, sometimes individuals with certain limitations are asked to take on service. In such cases, the one assigning the service must carefully consider whether the person is capable, and the person accepting the service should honestly assess their ability to perform it.