Should devotees be poor, or should we all be rich?

Our philosophy is actually neither renunciation nor opulence, but yukta-vairagya. To reject things that can be used to Krsna is just as incorrect as being materially attached.

When I joined in the early 1990s, the predominant mood was that devotees should be poor and renounced. We were taught that temples should be opulent, but devotees should live very simply. This has many strong points, but it also has disadvantages, because many would use it as escapism to avoid their responsibilities in family life. There were also cases of devotees who would try to become artificially renounced, which would generally not bring good results. Artificial renunciation often makes people disturbed and erratic in their actions.

Later, the mood gradually changed, going to the other extreme: devotees started being taught that they should be rich, or at least well-to-do, and that poverty is actually a symptom of incompetence or false renunciation. It was almost like a pendulum that, after reaching an extreme in one direction, moved to the opposite extreme. Different communities, groups, and countries went or are going through these two stages at different times and in different intensities, but I believe it's a general tendency in our society.

As expected, there is a certain clash between these two ideas. Devotees who like to live in a simple way often don't trust the well-to-do devotees, considering them materialists or sense gratifiers, while the well-to-do devotees look down on the renounced ones, considering them inapt or immature.

As in other situations, we may be dragged into the duality and take our side, but I find both may be missing the point.

Our philosophy is actually neither renunciation nor opulence, but yukta-vairagya. To reject things that can be used to Krsna is just as incorrect as being materially attached. On top of that, the varnāśrama system is based on people being engaged according to their natures, and not in trying to apply a single stereotyped idea to everyone.

A devotee who is materially talented and has the propensity and talent to make money, being advised to abandon that and become a dry renunciant, is as detrimental and immature as someone who has brāhminical or ascetic tendencies being advised to do business. Both qualities can be used for Krsna, but when one tries to go against his own nature, problems start.

As Krsna explains in the Bhagavad-Gita:

"Even a man of knowledge acts according to his own nature, for everyone follows the nature he has acquired from the three modes. What can repression accomplish?" (3.33)

"It is far better to discharge one’s prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another’s duties perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one’s own duty is better than engaging in another’s duties, for to follow another’s path is dangerous." (3.35)

We can see that some devotees of Lord Caitanya, like Pundarika Vidyanidhi, were extremely rich, while others, like Kolavecha Sridhara, were extremely poor, but they were all cooperating in the service to Mahāprabhu, serving according to their natural propensities and facilities. The main point is not to have a bigger or smaller collection of material objects, but to be satisfied with whatever we have and have the peace of mind to use such material assets to serve Krsna.

In the Bhagavad-Gita (4.18), Krsna explains another important point:

"One who sees inaction in action and action in inaction is intelligent among men, and he is in the transcendental position, although engaged in all sorts of activities."

At first, this may appear to be one of these very complicated verses only scholars can understand, but it is actually quite simple. Here, Krsna explains the difference between karma and akarma. Karma means fruitive activities that result in material reactions, while akarma means transcendental activities that purify us. In the verse, karma is translated as action, and akarma as inaction.

Inaction in action applies to a devotee who is apparently involved in all kinds of material activities, but who is doing all of it for Krsna. Although involved in so many seemingly materialistic activities, he is in a transcendental position. Action in inaction applies to a false renunciant, who is thinking himself transcendental because he is not working, but is actually becoming more and more involved in karmic reactions for neglecting his duties. Instead of becoming transcendental, he is actually becoming more materially entangled.

There is little point in discussing whether being a materialist is better or worse than being a false renunciant; both are bad and must be avoided. However, one can attain success in spiritual life by either being a true renunciant or by being a karma-yogi, executing seemingly material work for the satisfaction of Krsna. In the yoga ladder, karma-yoga is subdivided into several levels, just as the renounced path is also subdivided into several levels. In this way, different classes and levels of devotees can be accommodated.

When devotees are properly guided, everyone can work according to their natural tendencies and thus be able to use their talents for Krsna, resulting in devotees who are not only happier and more united but also more mature and more capable of helping others.

One who can attain internal renunciation can remain renounced even if he becomes a rich man, while someone who fails to do so may remain attached even after giving up all his possessions.

Read also:

Waking up early and solving our problems

The role of sense gratification, love and relationships in our spiritual practice

Sambandha, Abhidheya and Prayojana

If you read this article to the end, give it a like. This helps it to reach more people.
If you have questions, use the comments; I will answer as possible. They may even become the topic for another article. Your thoughts and opinions are also very welcome. ⤵️