Michael Amaladoss

The beginnings of ashram life certainly mark a new stage in the encounter between the Gospel and the cultures and religions of India. The first Indian Christian ashram was probably the dwelling of Roberto de Nobili, who lived like a Hindu sannyasi. Many of the missionaries who followed him must have lived the same kind of life. They spent their time in prayer, study and spiritual discourse. They were strict vegetarians. They tried to show themselves as different from the traditional missionaries who may have followed a Portuguese way of life. The Pandara Swamis who catered to the subaltern castes must have a live a similar life at another level. In more recent times, Blessed Kuriakose Chavara, the founder of the CMIs, is credited with founding an ashram community in 1831. An ashram was founded by Brahmabandab Upadyaya with a few companions on the banks of the Narmada in 1898. It did not last long as it did not find favour with the ecclesiastical authorities of the time. Brahmabandab himself, though he remained a sannyasi, was later involved in nationalist political movements. In 1921 Dr. Savarirayan Jesudasan and Dr. Ernest Forrestor Paton founded the Christukula Ashram at Tirupattur, Tamil Nadu. Abbé Jules Monchanin and Don Henri Le Saux founded Shantivanam in 1950. Today we have more than sixty ashrams. The fact that Ashram Aikiya is celebrating its silver jubilee is a sign that they are flourishing. An occasion like this is an opportunity, not only to celebrate past achievements, but to look to the future. We could ask ourselves whether ashrams have a future and what that future will be. The question perhaps may surprise some. It is a fact however that there are not as many ashrams and ashramites as many would have liked and predicted. Many national seminars have supported and encouraged the ashram movement. Its contemplative dimension as particularly suited to and necessary for India has been frequently stressed. All the people who have founded ashrams have been seekers of a contemplative way of life focusing on God-experience. Not being an ashramite myself my perspective would be that of an outsider. It could be helpful to launch a useful dialogue and discussion.

A look at the ashrams around us will help us to make a sort of profile of ashrams. When Monchanin and Le Saux founded Shantivanam their aim was to introduce into India an Indian style of monastic life. They were aware that India had a rich mystical tradition. They felt that the Church was not reaching out to this mystical tradition. Its priests and religious were highly respected as educators and social workers. The official worship of the Christians was communitarian and ritualistic, not adapted to Indian culture. So they felt that an Indian Christian monastery where a group of people were living a contemplative way of life will attract the Indians who were searching for an experience of God. They hoped that the Indian sannyasis will find in the Christian experience a fulfilment of their search for God-experience. The Hindu search for advaitic union with the Absolute will be enriched and fulfilled by the experience of the Christian Trinity. Le Saux wrote the book Saccidananda to explain this spiritual dynamic.

The Goals of Christian Ashrams
Shantivanam, Kurisumala and Christa Prema Sevashram (Pune) served as models for many later ashrams. There are a number of factors in this project that we have to unpack. There was an attempt at indigenisation or inculturation. The ashramites attempted to live in a simple Indian way. Their lives may not have been more simple than that of many women religious who were working in parishes and schools at that time. But they dressed and lived like Indian sannyasis or world-renouncers, lived in simple huts in a non-instituitional atmosphere and ate vegetarian food. They spent their time in spiritual sadhana, reading the Christian and Hindu scriptures, spending time in personal and group prayer and doing some simple work around the ashram.

There was also an effort at dialogue with Hinduism. Their very way of life was patterned on the life of the Hindu sannyasis. There was an ongoing intellectual dialogue with the philosophical and spiritual traditions of Hinduism promoting mutual understanding. The Hindu scriptures, some Hindu symbols and gestures of worship like the aarthis, an Indian style of chanting, and the use of the Hindu sacred language, Sanskrit, were progressively introduced into the prayer services. The place of worship was also inspired by Hindu models.

The Christian monastic identity was maintained by the practice of work and study, and regular common prayer at fixed times of the day. The ashram was also an open house offering hospitality to God-seekers of every religion. At a later stage the ashram was also involved in social projects to help the poor people around.

Thus the Indian Christian Ashram was characterized by a serious quest for God-experience. Helping this quest was a simple way of life, an attempt at inculturation, integrating especially certain traditions of the sannyasa way of life, an ongoing dialogue with Hinduism, especially with its rich spiritual and theological tradition, and regular community prayer, at least three times a day.

There was also a growing emphasis on the presence of a guru. There was a recognition of Jesus Christ as the sadguru or true guru. But the advisability of a human guru as a guide or a master was insisted upon.

Ashrams in Indian Tradition
How do these ashrams compare with the traditional ashrams in India? Unfortunately, the picture is not too clear. India did not have a communitarian, monastic tradition. The sannyasi is a free individual who is basically a wanderer. He may have had a disciple or two. It is doubtful whether they stayed as a community. In the Bhakti traditions there may have been groups of devotees who stayed together to carry on community worship in the temple. Saints like Caitanya seems to have had groups of followers. Ashrams may also have been places where experts in the arts or scriptures or other sciences lived. They may have lived like vanaprasthas. Students may have gathered round them. The guru or teacher is obviously the centre of the group. There were also ashrams which were no more than hospices, especially near sacred places. Wandering sannyasis stayed in these places for shorter or longer periods in the course of their wanderings.

Today we have big ashrams like the Ramanashram in Tiruvannamalai, the Aurobindo ashram in Pondicherry, the Sivananda ashram in Rishikesh and the Ramakrishna ashram in Belur, near Kolkatha – to mention only a few. I wonder whether these are ashrams in the Indian tradition or whether they are institutions partly patterned on western monastic models. The guru-cult that surrounds the samadhis of the original gurus in these ashrams is also a modern development. A different kind of ashram was favoured by Mahatma Gandhi and his disciple Vinoba Bhave who had ashrams to train activists for their socio-political movements. Taking into account these different kinds of ashrams Richard Taylor spoke of khadhi and kavi ashrams. A Gandhian ashram will be a khadhi one. Ashrams like Sivananda ashram are involved in some kind of social work (Swami Sivananda himself was a medical doctor), but do not prepare activists for work outside.

Therefore we do not really have one Indian model with which we can evaluate ashrams. At the same time this brief look into the Indian context can free us from having any ideal image of what an ashram should be. This makes us free to invent our own ashrams according to our context and need. What then is an ashram? I am not trying to construct an ideal image from the past, which I have just now decried. I am just spelling out what I think are some essentials, both positively and negatively.

Ashram: A Profile
An ashram is a place where people – one or many -, leading a simple way of life, are pursuing God-experience. I think that this description of an ashram is necessary and sufficient. Every other element is secondary.

Should ashrams have an Indian way of life? All Indians, priests and religious must live an Indian way of life. Many poorer religious communities actually do. This is not a special requirement only for the ashramites. The fact that many priests and religious do not seem to live an Indian way of life today may make the ashramites stand out as different. But this is not an essential part of their identity. What is an Indian way of life? Ways of life in India are changing under the impact of modernity, science and technology. A studied attempt at ‘primitivism’, where one is trying to preserve modes of life fast disappearing from the contemporary context, is not necessary for an Indian way of life. An Indian way of life is often linked to a simple way of life. One can live simply in any circumstance. There is no ideal Indian way valid for ever. Is vegetarian food a necessary part of an Indian way of life? Some Indians are vegetarians. There are many reasons why vegetarianism is good. The non-violence it represents has both a real and a symbolic value.

Should ashrams inculturate their prayer and worship? I think that all Indians must inculturate their prayer and worship. Immediately after the Second Vatican Council, there were experimental centres to try out the new Indian liturgy and at that time the ashrams were seen as appropriate places to be such experimental centres. But this does not seem to be a permanent vocation or characteristic of ashrams. Since the Church as a whole does not seem to be interested in inculturation today, the ashrams may find themselves in a peculiar situation when they are trying to provide an Indian decorative framework to the traditional rites. Such a situation however is unfortunate.

Should ashrams have gurus? That in the course of spiritual sadhana every one needs a guide is widely accepted. But, in the Indian tradition, when a guru initiates a disciple into sannyasa, that person then becomes autonomous. The guru has no more authority over that person. In the Christian tradition, the guide is a facilitator and there is no permanent bond between a guide and the disciple. So any kind of guru-cult is far from any spiritual tradition. Somehow the guru-cult seems to be becoming a tradition in India today. The guru is even divinised. When the guru dies, his/her samadhi becomes the centre of a cult. This practice may have come from the cult of saints in Christianity and Islam. In Indian tradition a guru is discovered by the disciples. No one sets him/herself as a guru. Every Christian – every human being – has the Word and the Spirit to guide them. They do not need human gurus, though these might be helpful. We need not make guruship an institutional requirement of an ashram nor build ashrams around the samadhis of gurus.

Should an ashram have a community? Since some of the early Christian ashrams were patterned on the European monasteries and since many ashrams even today are actually religious communities trying to live an Indian contemplative way of life, community may come to be seen as an essential element of an ashram. With community comes structures of common life, a superior, common prayer, etc. A superior is no more necessary in an ashram than a guru. In Indian ashrams a family may be responsible for the running of the ashram leaving the sannyasis free for their sadhana. Common prayer, especially at regular hours of the day, is not essential to sadhana. Even in Christian tradition, the eremitic life is both prior to and contemporaneous with monastic forms of common life and prayer. These monastic forms of prayer are not a necessary preparation for mysticism. I am not saying that an ashram should not have a community. But community structures are not essential elements of an ashram.

An interesting example of the point I am making here is Swami Abishiktananda. He did join Swami Parama Arubhi Anandam – Abbé Monchanin – to found Shantivanam as an Indian Benedictine ashram. He was the Benedictine monk, while Monchanin was only a diocesan priest. But Abishiktananda soon lost interest in running an ashram. Rather he found it an obstacle to his own sadhana. He was frequently absent from the ashram and almost abandoned it after the death of Monchanin. He was happy to hand it over to Swami Dayananda – Dom Bede Griffiths – and retire to the Himalayas to pursue his chosen advaitic sadhana. He never founded an ashram, though he had some disciples.

I have no objection to a monastic or a religious community trying to live in an Indian way and even call itself an ashram. But I would not like them to think that their monastic structures are essential elements for an ashram.

Should ashrams be institutions? In the Indian tradition, apart from the hospice-type ashrams, an ashram is where an ashramite lived. Where Sannyasis lived, they depended on the good will of the people for their support, which was basically food. But we tend to institutionalise everything. Our ashrams need chapels, libraries, guest rooms, etc. We cannot think of formation in an ashram without an extensive infrastructure. Let us at least be aware that these are not essential for an ashram way of life. While ashramites could be artistically and theologically creative, sharing with others their rich experiences, such creativity should not be an excuse to build up huge formation centres.

Should an ashram house only celibates? Ancient Indian ashrams seems to have had married people. An ashram need not be linked necessarily with sannyasis or religious with vows. Every person can become a God-seeker.

What kind of prayer should characterize an ashram? In European tradition we are accustomed to distinguish between the contemplative and the active lives. So we automatically associate ashram life to the contemplative life. Correspondingly we also distinguish between ordinary spiritual life and mysticism. Ashram life is linked to mysticism. I wonder whether this is necessary. Similarly we would differentiate between popular religiosity and more official and elite forms of spirituality. Ashram life would then relate to the official and elite form of spiritual life. All these identifications can be questioned today. I do not say that different forms of prayer do not exist. They do lead to different kinds of God-experience. But I do not today accept any hierarchical order between them, considering contemplation and mysticism as superior to other forms. Every one follows the path to which God has called him/her. There is no path inherently superior to any other. Some may be called to follow the mystical way and they should be encouraged.

In this context I would like to raise a delicate issue. Many Christians in India today who belong to the Dalit and Tribal communities consider the ashram as a Brahminical enterprise. The language, the symbols and the scriptures we use often belong to the Brahminical tradition. There is of course nothing wrong with it. But can we think of ashrams that would be inspired by the symbols, cultures and practices of the Dalits and Tribals? Or would ashrams remain the pursuit of an elite group of people to which people from the other social groups will not be attracted? At the same time I think that the Brahminization is not very deep at the practical level. I can suggest an experiment. All of you are familiar with the Indian rite of the Eucharist, which is accused of being Brahminical. Suppose you keep the symbols and gestures, but substitute the Sanskrit chants by chants in a local language, how Brahminical will it look? Very little, I think, except the needlessly long purification rite.

The Prophetic Role of Ashrams
After these clarifications, let me then come back to my original description of ashrams as people – one or many – who are searching for God-experience. Searching for God-experience is not an activity that is restricted to a few. Every one is supposed to seek to experience God. But they are called to do so in various ways.

Should all ashramites try to be ‘mystics’ in the traditional sense? God is everywhere. God is both immanent and transcendent. God can be experienced in the world, in the others and in Godself. In his story regarding the last day in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus evokes the scene where he tell the people before him: “I was hungry and you gave me to eat. I was thirsty and you gave me to drink. I was naked you clothed me. I was sick you visited me.” The astonished people ask him: “Lord when were you hungry and we gave you to eat”, and so on. Then Jesus tells them: “Whatever you did to one the least of my brothers you did it to me.” (Mt 25) What this story is telling us is that Jesus/God can, and perhaps should by preference, be encountered in the poor, the suffering and the marginalized. We are loving and encountering God by loving encountering these people. We are loving God in the others. Can we describe Mother Theresa, recently beatified, as an ashramite? She experienced God in the poorest of the poor and abandoned people. Her life was more simple than that of many ashramites. She was committed to prayer. Perhaps she was not in active and open dialogue with Indian religions. But some may be called to experience God in Godself, so to speak. They go into themselves, free themselves of all attachments and distractions and become aware of the all pervading divine presence. We know that this is possible because mystics have witnessed to this experience.

These two experiences of God are different. But they are experiences of the same God. God can show Godself to us in a variety of ways. We may experience God in the sacraments and celebrations. What is wrong is to think that the mystical way of experiencing God is better than or superior to other ways. God calls us to experience God in these different ways. Every experience is a gift of God. The richness of the experience depends on the God whom we experience and not on the way we experience God. Each way of experiencing God however highlights a dimension of God’s presence to us. While we appreciate mysticism and the mystics God has not called every one of us to be a mystic. If we believe in a multiplicity of births as the Hindus do then we can say that mysticism is the only authentic God-experience and if we do not arrive at it in one life, we may do so after many births. But our perspective is different.

Mysticism however has a place in sadhana. It is not for every one. It cannot be acquired through a recipe by any one who wants it. I think that it is a vocation from God to which the person called responds. The Indian spiritual tradition, like other spiritual traditions, have techniques which help us to prepare ourselves for a mystical experience. Yoga is one such technique that is commonly used in India. Art, music and even dance are used in the Bhakti traditions. But God-experience is God’s gift. It is prepared for, but not acquired. I do not know whether sadhana preparing for mystical experience is being seriously pursued in many ashrams.

All ashramites therefore must be God-seekers. They must strive after God-experience. But they may experience God in various ways. Not all of them need be mystics. But then the question: Since every human is supposed to seek to experience God, what is special about the quest of the ashramites?

Ashramites symbolize in their life in a visible and outstanding way the quest which every one seeks to live in her/his life in ordinary way. In this way they are a constant, prophetic reminder to every one of a dimension of life which otherwise they may tend to forget. This is a general pattern which we find in life in various ways.

Religious life has such a visible, symbolic role in the Church and in the community. All of us have to seek and find God in the world. But many of us are so preoccupied by the ordinary day- to-day business of living that we do not even think of any other dimension in our lives. In this sense life and the world lead us away from God – at least we forget God. We may even be so attached to the pleasures of this world that we do not wish to think of anything or any one beyond it. In such a situation some people ‘abandon’ the world and the normal way of life in it to call attention to the disorder that our normal lives represent. By the vows they renounce attachment to riches, to sexual pleasure and to the self to show that there is something more important in our lives, namely God. Their life has a prophetic role in the community. Their life does not say that this is the only way of experiencing God. But it reminds every one that the divine dimension in life should not be forgotten. There may be others who do not abandon the world, but seek and find God in and through life in the world. Through such a discovery life in the world itself will be transformed. They are also symbolic and prophetic people. The quest for God can therefore be symbolized in more ways than one.

The ashramites are such prophetic people. By their single-minded pursuit of the Absolute they remind every one of the important dimension of searching for God-experience in every one’s life. They do not call people to imitate them, to do what they are doing. But they are reminding them to search for God in their own way of life. They would be wrong if they ever suggest that theirs is the only or the better or the easier way of reaching God. Unfortunately this sometimes happens.

Should the ashramites be religious, that is belong to a religious congregation with three vows? The role of the ashrams is similar to the role of the religious in the history of the Church. But the structures and laws that govern the life of religious in the Church have become so complex over the centuries that we can say that ashramites need not be that kind of religious. For instance the monks in the beginning made only one promise: to become a monk. Later this promise developed into the three vows. Today religious life is the bearer of many historical structures that were laid over it by various historical and cultural contexts. The reform after the Second Vatican Council has not been able to achieve much to update religious life. So the ashramites would not really gain anything by thinking of themselves as religious. On the contrary, by becoming religious in the present-day Church, they may take on needless burdens which curtail their freedom in various ways.

Are ashrams needed today? We believe that God calls some people to be prophetic always and every where. But every prophet has to be relevant to the time and to the context. So the question is not whether we need ashrams, but what kind of ashrams. We can appreciate this only if we look at today’s context. I would like to do so from two different points of view, looking at the world and at the Church respectively.

A Post-modern World
We are living now in a post-modern world. It is not my intention here to offer an elaborate analysis of the post-modern world. I shall limit myself to a few points that are relevant to our reflection on the role of ashrams. Modernity, focused on reason, led to the phenomenon of secularisation in Europe. India has not been secularised in the same way given its strong roots in religiosity. But it has not escaped the impact of science and technology. Thanks to the globalization of the media and of the market, there is increasing consumerism. The rich dominate the poor and the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing. The other is not respected for his/her dignity. They are simply numbers in the consumer or labour market. Modern means of production and consumption exploit and destroy the earth and its resources. The women are exploited and suppressed in various ways, treated more as objects than as persons. People still practice religion. But it is used more in support of their quest for a good life and success in business. Religion and God are thus instrumentalized. Techniques to foretell the future and rituals to ward of foreseen dangers are popular. Materialism, egoism and consumerism rules the lives of most people. These vices are not totally new, though their manifestations may be. But a secularism that distances itself from God and religion is new. How can one be prophetic in such a situation? Even a certain reasonableness and humanity that were characteristic of modernity are disappearing in the chaos of the rank individualism of post-modernity. With the grand narratives, any kind of coherent view of the world and of history have disappeared. The rich and the powerful dominate the earth.

A superficial reaction to the post-modern would be to reject science and technology and turn back to some form of primitivism claiming to live in harmony with nature. Gandhi was sometimes tempted to do that. Only people with resources can actually afford to live that kind of life. Science and technology are not wrong in themselves. They can be used for increasing production, reducing poverty, caring for the health and well being of all. They can also be exploited for selfish ends oppressive and exploitative of others. The modern media can bring people together in various ways. Reducing consumer needs, proper use of material goods, respect and concern for the others, particularly the women, and care for the integrity of creation should characterize any right way of life in today’s world. But above all there is the need to acknowledge and accept the lordship of God or the Absolute that relativizes our own identities and projects. Such relativization may seem post-modern. But it is not absolute relativization, but relativization in relation to an Absolute. The Absolute, however, need not be seen as being outside creation. It can be found in all things and all things in it. Finding God in all things may therefore be a concrete way in which ashrams can be prophetic in a modern secularising world. Finding God in all things will also promote a holistic attitude that will promote personal and social integration, focus on healing at all levels, physical, psychic and social, encourage integration with nature and the body and facilitate reconciliation. These values may be pursued by different ashrams. Discovering God in the world is, in a way, secularising religion and spirituality. Ashrams have the freedom to do so. It is for us to create and invent new forms of ashram life in new contexts. Some ashrams seem to be promoting an ayurvedic way to healing. This can be widened into an approach to human wholeness. The only demand is that it should be symbolic, visible and prophetic.

There are a lot of popular gurus in India today who seem to promote an easy sense of peace among the middle and upper-middle classes of people without challenging them to any deep transformation, apart from facilitating some social work. They are not sufficiently prophetic. The ashrams should not look on them as models. A commitment to be poor and to struggle with the poor should rather characterize the ashrams.

Need for New Symbolic Forms
Jesus called his disciples and sent them into the world to be prophets witnessing to the Good News and calling people to conversion. When the Church became the religion of the empire it lost this prophetic force. Then people who wanted to live the Good News authentically and in a counter-cultural way abandoned the world and went off to the desert to live as hermits. Later monasteries were founded. As the situation of the world changed, newer forms of religious life have been emerging. They were more sensitive to the needs of the other, specially the poor, in a fast industrializing society. They left their monasteries and founded schools, orphanages, hospitals and hospices for the poor. Today the prophetic thrust of the Church and of the religious is disappearing, as those needs are disappearing, except in poor countries. Other needs however, like the search for healing and wholeness, reconciliation and peace are taking their place. There are individuals and groups who seek to change and continue to be prophetic according to the ‘signs of the time’. But many religious continue in their outmoded structures and institutions.

The pastors in parishes are running well-oiled machines that distribute sacraments catering to the ritual needs of the faithful. They promote devotions and charismatic prayer groups that care in a certain, non-transforming, way for the sick and the needy. The younger pastors seem more interested in managing educational institutions and social projects that bring money and influence. The religious are still running their educational and social institutions. But they seem to have lost their original charism and thrust. They no longer even pretend to reach out to the members of other religions in a context of mission, since their time and effort is devoted to the building up of the Christian community and to find jobs for their children. The poor will have a few scholarships offered to them. For most religious Congregations they have become primarily money-making institutions. Influence in society is a welcome bonus. Where there is money and influence, power games for control will not be very far. Many of these institutions are becoming business ventures. Today more and more lay people are showing that they can do these things better than the religious. Such institutions may be necessary for the Christian community. They may be run in a prophetic way, witnessing to the ‘good news’ at all levels of society. The question is whether they are being run as such prophetic witnesses.

I think that the need for the Church and the religious (I am not talking of the Christian community) today is to abandon such non-prophetic institutions which are now better managed by the government and/or private groups or by lay people and to turn to the search for God that provides inspiration, motivation, education and formation to every one at every level of life. They should try to meet the spiritual thirst of the people. I think that it is here that ashrams would be relevant and are needed. We should not make again the mistake of imagining huge institutions, though ashrams should always be open hospices ready to welcome people who wish to come and have an experience of quiet prayer. We need rather prophetic presences that would symbolize a new way of living in the modern world. The smaller and the more scattered these presences are the better for every one.

It used to be said that what India needs are not educators and social workers but gurus. I am not pushing this distinction between development-justice and spirituality. I think we have to go beyond this dichotomy between life in this world and spirituality. I am not saying that one had to renounce the world in order to be spiritual. I am not opposing ashrams as spiritual institutions to others seen as secular or even material institutions. What I am suggesting is a transformation. An ashram could be a college, a school, a social project or a prayer centre. Ashramites could be living in urban slums or even in posh areas, not only on river banks, mountain tops or in forests. Whatever they do and wherever they live they are animated by the quest for God as leading to wholeness and integration, personal, social and cosmic. Other people can see this in the way they live and work. It is not necessary to give up institutions , but to create alternate ways of presence and work even in these institutions and outside. We have to change our priorities and orientations. Perhaps we would have ashramites working and witnessing in government and indistrial/commercial enterprises. An ashram therefore would not mean running away from the world to pursue God-experience. Rather it would involve a new way of being present in the world looking for God who is forgotten and ignored. The challenge is not to create special places where people can encounter God, but to experience God every where.

An ashram then is not primarily a place. It is a way of life, a manner of being. When Indian tradition speaks of the four ashramas as stages in a person’s life, it is not talking of places and institutions. The focus is on the people who live their ashram or way of life, taking it with them wherever they go. Wherever such people live and work there is an ashram as a place or institution. It is people who make an ashram, not vice versa. What we need is a new form of prophetic presence in the world. I do not know whether the present ashrams meet this challenge. It is possible that the present ashrams too get institutionalised following pre-set and imagined patterns, losing their prophetic freedom in the process. But I do know that the present forms of spiritual life have to change.

Conclusion
Let me conclude by saying that an ashram is people seeking to experience God. God is present, not away from the world, but in it, transforming it. The ways of seeking and finding this God are many. They are determined only by the freedom of God revealing Godself and the freedom of the people responding to God. Though every one needs to search and find God, some people are called to do it in a symbolic and visible way so as to prophetically challenge the others. Some may be even called to live apart from the world to highlight their symbolic and prophetic challenge. But such setting apart has no meaning in itself.

The prophecy of the ashram is directed not only to the world and to the lay people, but also to the Church and to the religious Congregations
Many of the ashrams today belong to religious Congregations. A few people in each congregation who show some inclination and desire for a life of prayer and simplicity are grouped in these places. They are often handicapped by the various legal structures and traditions of the Congregations. I am afraid that they also serve as alibis for the rest of the Congregation to continue living and working as they are without any effort to meet the contemporary challenges. These ashrams help to give the others a good conscience. They serve as retreat centres. I wonder how many people go back really transformed. We can compare this situation with another similar one. Each Congregation has a few doing social work, while others are involved in big money-making institutions. They seem to exhaust the Congregation’s interest in the poor.

Some ashrams in the past may have lived their own forms of ‘orientalism’. They were catering more to what the European seekers for God were looking for than what the Indians really needed. They were Europe-oriented. Their gurus were more popular in Europe than in India. I think that what we need is to rethink many of the elements that we have come to accept as essentials for ashram life based on wrong premises. I have tried to point out some of these earlier. What we need is a radical rethinking and de-institutionalization.

The Indian tradition has always admired the life of sannyasis. On the one hand, we should not adopt the world-negating attitudes of some of the Indian spiritual traditions. On the other hand, the freedom of the sannyasi may be a value that we need to recapture in the Indian Christian tradition. We have the examples of Sadhu Sundar Singh and Swami Abishiktananda in the past. But they have not found many imitators. A sannyasi is also free to cross religious borders. S/he does not feel bound by any namarupa (name and form) in his/her quest for the Absolute. When two religions encounter each other and discover each other not as enemies but as allies and collaborators in the fight against the forces of evil like materialism, consumerism and selfishness some people may feel called to cross over to another religious tradition without abandoning one’s own. In an Indian context we may call them Hindu-Christians. Here again Swami Abishiktananda has given us an example. When he began his ashram life he thought that the Hindu advaitic experience of Ramana Maharishi will find fulfilment in the Christian experience of the Trinity. But when he himself had the advaitic experience he realized that such integration and fulfilment were not easy. In the mean time he had moved from explaining the advaita in the light of Christianity to understanding Christianity in the light of the advaita. Finally he ended up being loyal to both spiritual traditions in their difference. This is a concrete illustration of God-experience that transcends all name and form without however abandoning them. I think that Sadhu Sundar Singh was a similar Hindu-Christian in his own day. A sannyasi is always a non-conformist. He is prophetic towards structures and institutions precisely in the name of the Absolute who transcends everything, while being immanent to unorganised reality. Ashrams should be non-conformist too. May be we need more wandering Christian sannyasis.

An ashram, therefore, is people who are engaged in the search for God-experience in a symbolic and visible manner in every context of life. Ashrams seem necessary and urgent in a post-modern world. We need to encourage all types of ashrams in a creative, even revolutionary, way, liberating them from traditional stereotypes. Newer types of ashrams may still save religious life from its contemporary irrelevance. Openness to the Spirit of God will be an assurance of freedom and creativity.

M. Amaladoss, S.J., Chennai.