Emotional Freedom

By H.H. Bir Krishna Das Goswami

In my travels I have noticed many devotees suffering from the effects of emotional dependency, or attempting to free themselves from it. I am impelled by my desire and need to help devotees to write about this subject.

Emotional dependency can affect GBCs, Presidents, Gurus, brahmacaries, householders, disciples, authorities, preachers, husbands, wives, gurukulis, sannyasis, vanaprasthas, children, women, and just about everyone else.

The symptoms of emotional dependency differ from person to person and may include depression, anxiety, anger, backaches, headaches, heartaches, regressive traits, over-dependence, violence, and more.

There are two basic categories of persons who are emotionally dependent in our society. One is the dominant authority figure, and the other is the person who is emotionally dependent upon that authority figure. Both types of personalities suffer due to this dynamic.

In addition, one may be emotionally dependent upon an institution, and the institutional paradigms may foster this understanding.

In a hierarchical institution there is a greater predominance of emotional bondage.

In a position of authority one assumes responsibility for persons under him or her in the hierarchy. This is a paternal situation. When the subordinate person does not live up to the authority's expectations, the authority experiences it as a personal failing, in much the same way as a parent experiences the failures of a minor child. He feels like a complete failure.

Between a parent and a minor child this dynamic may be useful for some time, but between two adults it leads to many mental and physical repercussions for the authority figure as well as for the person being cared for.

In the beginning of the relationship, the authority figure is fixed on the idea that he or she is responsible for the dependent's emotional, spiritual, and material well-being. When the dependent acts or thinks in a way that runs contrary to the authority's concept of "well-being," the authority may feel guilt, believing it is his fault, or may become angry, or manifest a variety of other emotions.

If the authority has dominion over multiple living entities and maintains the attitude that he is responsible in every way, mostly for things completely outside of his control, he may eventually become exhausted and even sick, because he is carrying the emotional burden of guilt and unhealthy caring.

The next stage for the authority may be what I call the rebellious stage, in which the authority absolutely rejects all responsibility for the dependent and does not even want to speak with them.

The dependent may also go through various stages. Many people are very enthusiastic to enter into a relationship where they will be cared for in ways that are only appropriate for a child. It takes great strength of character to be independently thoughtful, as Srila Prabhupada wanted us to be.

"The Krishna Consciousness Movement is for training men to be independently thoughtful..."
Srila Prabhupada, Letter to Karandhara, Bombay, December 22, 1972

Even though being cared for inappropriately may feel warm and comforting at first, ultimately it leads to dysfunctionality as one loses self-esteem and self-confidence. In fact, one may say that a vital part of one's being atrophies.

Generally, a dependent person is not satisfied with the care he is receiving and may become more needy as time goes on. When these needs are not fulfilled, the dependent person may become despondent or bitter, may reject the care of the caregiver, and may even come to consider the caregiver an enemy.

This is evidenced by the presence of many persons who hold a negative attitude toward ISKCON and its authorities. Their negativity exceeds the boundaries of normal emotional functioning because of their extreme bitterness and disappointment, as they were not cared for in the way the institution and its representatives implicitly promised. Thus, in the name of helping ISKCON, they may in fact be venting their own emotional frustrations.

To address this challenge, we need to clearly redefine the relationship between the authority figure and the dependent. The authority figure, or institution, should not implicitly or explicitly promise to fulfill all the needs of the person. It is better to assume the position of facilitator, that is, to help one understand how to fulfill his own needs by becoming an autonomous human being.

This may be a hard nut to crack, as one may think that the effective and efficient functioning of a religious society depends upon obedience. One may feel that if we take this stance, our society and the individuals in positions of authority may lose all their assets, people, money, and so on.

My experience, however, is the opposite. When people are encouraged to develop their individuality and serve joyfully, not because they have to, they function at a higher level of efficiency. And because of their joyfulness, more and more people are attracted to render voluntary service.

People will use their imagination more freely and come up with increasingly dynamic ways to share Krishna consciousness with others.

There may be emotional objections as well, as some may be attached to the adulation of followers and the acquiring of ever more obsequious devotees. Of course, we know that Lord Caitanya cautioned us about this in His Siksastaka.

A change of paradigm is required in order to achieve emotional freedom at all levels of society. When we undergo this change of paradigm, it will be as if a great weight has been lifted from our shoulders. It will require a great deal of strength, however, for people to take responsibility for their own lives, and for authorities to resist the various temptations to control the lives of others.

Source: https://www.dandavats.com/?p=3852