If we are doing some valuable services but the institution values some other more visible services, do we need to change ourselves to do those institutionally valued services?

If we don’t like to do something when we are a part of a community organization, just so that we are seen to be doing something valuable or something important, we want to do something which we feel is actually of value. But then those services are not valued in the community and then although we are doing something significant, but it is perceived as if we are not doing anything significant because we are not doing the visible services that are considered valuable by the community leaders. What should we do in such situations? In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna uses the word dharma in multiple senses.

So let’s look at some of the usages in the Gita itself. Arjuna is using it in 2.7. He is talking about what is the right thing for me to do. And then when Krishna says that, there he is using dharma in the sense of establishing the social order.

So, broadly speaking, while the word dharma has many different meanings, in one context it is harmonious belonging. For example, if we are driving on the road, then we following the rules of road traffic is the dharma that we need to follow. So the individual needs to adjust and adapt to the rules of the larger whole that they belong to or seek to belong to or they just are a part of.

At the same time, the larger whole also needs to be reciprocating with the individuals who belong harmoniously. So, for example, the rules need to be applied fairly. People of a particular demographic should not be pulled over more and others pulled over less or some people who are wealthy are allowed to get away and others are targeted because they do not have the influence.

That means we need to do our part for the whole and the whole needs to do its part for us. And when we say dharmasya glani can happen, it can happen in both ways where the individual is no longer doing the part and also the whole is not doing its part. Generally speaking, in any political system, there is the left and the right.

Here by using, I am using the word political, I am not using it in the sense of negative sense of being manipulating and all those things that are associated with politics. I am using it simply in the functional sense of administration. So, in any administrative setup, there will inevitably be the left and the right.

So the left is generally concerned about those who are left out by the existing system. The right is concerned about what is right with the existing system. So in general, the right tends to be conservative.

The system is good. You need to adjust and fit into the system. So the right focuses more on individuals aligning with the system and doing their dharma.

The left focuses more on the society or the larger whole and that reforming itself so that it also does its dharma and fairly reciprocates with and rewards everyone. So therefore, each individual will have to decide how important belonging to a particular larger whole is for them. And accordingly, they may have to choose their actions especially with respect to doing what is expected by the larger whole for them.

We may still be doing something valuable for the tradition but it may not be valued by the institution or it may not be valued by a particular branch of the institution where there is a particular ethos set up. So we may have to decide whether we want to belong to that particular branch or we can choose to belong to some other branch. In general, the individual may often want a certain level of autonomy and the larger whole may want a certain level of harmony.

Who is right? It depends. Autonomy taken too far can lead to anarchy. Harmony taken too far can lead to homogeneity where there is a complete crushing of or erasure of individuality.

In anarchy, there is no order at all and nothing gets done. People may even work at cross purposes sabotaging each other. So if we have a greater need for autonomy, then we need to acknowledge that we may not get a certain level of facility because the facility is available with the leaders of the larger whole and they will give facility to those who exhibit a certain level of harmony with the larger whole.

In general, in no organizational set up will one get total autonomy and total facility together or even a high level of autonomy and a high level of facility together. So, some organizations may facilitate certain maverick researchers and they may be given no structure, no clear tasks and they might just come up with a brainwave that changes the whole industry. Still at the end, something will be expected from them.

They cannot just be doing research on subjects entirely of their own interest which have nothing to do with the organization’s purpose and its bottom line. So my understanding is that if certain kind of facilities say such as initiation, second initiation or something like that is required for us within the institutional structure, then we may have to do one of two things. Either sacrifice on our autonomy and come to a greater level of harmony with the expectations of the leaders or find out some other larger whole where that autonomy is respected and valued and which is also capable of giving us that facility.