Conversations With Ananda — Chapter 4: Nayaswami Devi, Women’s Roles in a Paramhansa Yogananda Community

At the time of our conversation, Nayaswami Devi was the co‑spiritual director, with her husband Jyotish, of the original Ananda community. She and Jyotish now serve as co-spiritual directors of Ananda worldwide. 

Devi serves at Ananda Publications, 1976. Click the image for a larger view.

Q: I’ve been hoping to ask you about the role that women play in the leadership of the Ananda community. I thought it might be interesting in several ways. First, because it’s a subject that has been either ignored in our culture or highly politicized, but also because men might be able to learn from the ways women handle leadership. So, to get started, could you describe your job as the co‑spiritual director of the Ananda community?

Devi: When I look at the division of our work as spiritual directors, Jyotish’s role seems to involve more of an overview of whole systems – getting the pieces to flow in a way that’s efficient, coherent, and integrated – whereas I’m trying to help the people that I rely on to carry on the various aspects of our ministry work to feel that their lives are focused, their lives are centered, their lives are working for them, and that they have the support they need.

I can almost think of it as fine‑tuning the system by making sure there’s harmony and integration, and that it spreads out into the community, but always very much working with individuals.

I do a lot of personal counseling. So, yes, part of it is looking at the needs of the individual, but always bearing in mind the community as well. For example, if I find that a number of people in a particular department are having a hard time, I’ll try to figure out how to give more support to that department. A few years ago, I noticed that lots of the employees in one of our businesses were coming to see me because they were unhappy and struggling, so we began having spiritual gatherings with the business, meditating and talking.

You might say that Jyotish and I are looking at management from the opposite ends of the telescope. I look at the individuals, and from that perspective, try to expand outward and see how it’s impacting the work we’re trying to accomplish, whereas Jyotish tends to look at whole systems.

Q: I got the impression from talking with Jyotish that he meets with the managers a lot, whereas it seems you primarily talk with the employees.

Devi: That’s right. I’m not saying that women don’t have authority here. There have been brilliant women in our work, women who could accomplish many times more than what some of the men could, but they do seem to accomplish in a different way. I might even say that, in many ways, it seems the women tend to approach their work more creatively, whereas men tend to approach leadership, problem‑solving, and administration in a more linear, rational fashion. The men will try to apply existing models, where the women will step back and try to feel what the individual needs, and then they’ll create new models.

Q: When you talk with Jyotish about work issues, do you balance your styles of problem‑solving?

Devi: We bounce back and forth. Of course, this could be a whole separate discussion – how couples co‑manage together. Sometimes the sparks fly, because our perspectives are quite different. But by and large, the majority of the time I think the two perspectives enhance each other. I’m not only talking about working with Jyotish, but working with the other men in leadership. I appreciate their perspective, because I can see that there’s an ability that I don’t have, to analyze the issues and create systems. But where we can come to an impasse is when they aren’t looking at the needs of the individuals within the system. Men can conceive great theories, but when you begin to apply them, are they fulfilling human needs?

Q: Much has been written in recent years about companies that empower people to make decisions about the issues they know best. But many companies still aren’t all that deeply concerned with their employees’ needs. Do you find that this is a factor at Ananda?

Devi: Oh, certainly. I think what we have here, in Swami Kriyananda, is a remarkable example of leadership. He is uniquely able to balance the masculine and feminine approaches within himself. He has a tremendous ability to get the overview and see long‑range directions and goals, but at the same time it’s often stunning to me to see the concern he has for individuals, even people he may not have much personal contact with.

He’ll get a letter from someone who’s having trouble working in one of our businesses, and he’ll always try to find out what’s going on. Why isn’t this person happy?

I once asked him, “Swami, how is it that you have such a wonderful gift of leadership?” And he said, “Well, it must be something I’ve done many times in the past, because it just comes naturally to me.” He said, “Most people lack confidence in their leadership, and so they try to use power.” He said, “I’ve never had to use power, because I understand the principles of leadership, and that’s much more effective.”

I think he recognizes that the gifts he has are rare. I think it’s why he’s created a balance of male and female leadership in the community. I suspect he realizes that most people, male or female, don’t incorporate both sides. I certainly recognize that in myself. I see other women that are better administrators than I am, and I see men who have a great deal of sensitivity toward people’s needs. But the question you asked was how I feel the flow of leadership in myself. And that’s basically to try to make the individual feel that their happiness, their welfare, and their spiritual development is as important as anything else we’re doing.

Q: Do you find, for yourself, that the role of a leader is expansive for you, that there are challenges to expand those attitudes of support and compassion?

Devi: It’s a tremendous challenge. I recently re‑read Swami Kriyananda’s book, The Art of Supportive Leadership, because I find that I need to keep going deeper in these principles.

Part of the reason it’s expansive for me is that my approach tends to be more personal, and I need to realize that as a leader, people tend see you not as a person but as a figure. And because I tend to relate to people, I don’t see myself that way, as a figure. But I’m having to understand that other people see me that way, and I have to be mindful of what I say, and not be too casual or jokey. Because I might say something like, “Gee, that doesn’t seem like a very good idea,” and people might get all bothered and confused, whereas it might not have been something I’d given much thought to.

So, part of being expansive is to be impersonal about yourself and say, okay, I know I’m just a person, I know I don’t have ultimate wisdom or a corner on the truth, but people expect to get an impersonal, objective opinion from me, and I owe that to them. And I owe it to them to be the figure they’re expecting me to be, even if inwardly I don’t identify with it.

It helps me as a devotee, too, because then you’re acting from the part of you that you know you really are, which is the part that you can give to God. So you can play the part that other people expect, and it’s all right, because you’re offering it to God.

Q: You talked about helping people find the support they need. That seems to imply that you have to develop empathy as a leader. Yet you said that you have to be impersonal as well. How can a leader develop that balance? It seems that if you went too far toward the personal, you’d lose touch with the spiritual, which is impersonal.

Devi: That’s a good point. In fact, it’s the subject of a story in Swami Kriyananda’s autobiography, The New Path. He tells how, as a young monk, Paramhansa Yogananda asked him to shake hands with people after he gave the Sunday services at the Hollywood church. Swamiji found that he felt drained after shaking hands with so many people, and he realized that he’d been trying to give on a personal level. Later, Yogananda counseled him to feel that God was flowing through him and blessing those people.

I think I tend to have a natural empathy. I’ve had it all my life. Even as a young girl, strangers would tell me their problems. People laugh because we’ll be in a department store and the salesperson will start telling me her troubles. I don’t know how people develop empathy, other than through meditation, where your heart opens and you feel increasingly able to feel what others are feeling.

I think that’s part of it, and also, you can learn to balance that sensitivity by being impersonal with it. Over the years, I’ve certainly seen that it’s helpful to give people a shoulder to cry on. But if someone’s coming for honest feedback and guidance, you’d better be able to give it to them, too, and not just say “There, there, you did the best you could.” Because if you really want to help them, you might have to say “This is what needs to be done, and unless you can look at this within yourself, you’ll continue to suffer.”

This is how Swami deals with us. It may be a higher expression of compassion to be very honest with them, at least to the extent that they are able to receive it. But, again, it’s frustrating, because you see people knocking their heads against a wall over something they can’t see in themselves, and they’ll come to you for help, and you realize that they aren’t ready to look at themselves clearly. So you have to approach it very, very gingerly, and say only as much as you feel you can without making them feel threatened.

Q: You mentioned that Swami Kriyananda tried to create a balance of male and female energies in the community’s leadership. Do you find yourself serving consciously as a corrective to the mistakes that the men make?

Devi: I don’t know about “consciously,” but I sure do it instinctively, and it happens from time to time.

Q: Is it usually when the man is pushing too far toward practicality, and ignoring people’s needs and feelings?

Devi: That’s sort of what happens. I’ll say, “No, that’s a great idea, but when you look at how it applies to this individual, it doesn’t ring true. It’s not in harmony with the principles of dharma.” It’s very, very fulfilling to work with the men who hold positions of leadership here, because there really is a mutual respect. Whenever I’ve felt strongly about something, they’ve always listened, and they’ve always incorporated it into the decision.

Q: They can hear it.

Devi: Oh, yeah. And vice versa, there are times when I’ll be leading in a certain direction, and they’ll outline for me why we can’t put it into practice. And I think this is so important for our society, because if those two forces can work with mutual respect and cooperation, it’s very, very effective, and everybody feels fulfilled.

It would have been extremely difficult for me to create the long‑term financial projections that some of the men have had to make for the community, because my mind simply doesn’t think in those terms. But I admire that ability, and at the same time, if you think of it in musical terms, you need the bass and tenor, but you also need the sopranos and altos. And I think the men I deal with are very effective in dealing with stable, consistent patterns, whereas the women can get at a creative essence that’s adaptable, and they can say, well, okay, this is fine in a general sense, but here’s a situation that doesn’t fit, and we need to look at it and respond accordingly.

That steady, male consistency is important, because without it your work would be chaotic. But if you can’t adapt and respond creatively to situations as they arise, it will become a living death, because it won’t have vitality.

Q: It sounds like a flowing, adaptive kind of energy. I watched a report on television about a cooperative community where the rules were so strict that it took a unanimous vote of the entire membership to move a water spigot in the garden. Over the years, have you seen that women’s energies have helped set a tone for the community’s development?

A more ecent photo of Devi and Jyotish.

Devi: They’ve been essential. It’s changed, too, in interesting ways, because in the beginning the main leaders were women, and at one point Swamiji said that he felt it had brought the community out of balance, and he corrected it by introducing more of a masculine‑feminine balance in the leadership. Why did it bring it out of balance? Things tended to be viewed in a too-personalized way, and it tended to get a little cliquish and self‑enclosed. So it tended not always to be capable of integrating opposing points of view.

Actually, this is an interesting line of thought, because it’s something I see that men can do better. Women tend to see things in a more personal sense generally, and I’ve seen men be able to listen to a hostile or opposing or conflicting opinion with much more impartiality and acceptance. Whereas I might be inclined to dismiss it immediately: “I don’t care what this person has to say, I just don’t think this has any validity.” And I’ve seen men be able to listen, and maybe from that opposing point of view, they’ll find a single valid point that is a corrective that genuinely needs to be incorporated into our way of life.

Whereas women, because they tend to take things more personally, will tend to reject opposing points of view more quickly, and something usually gets lost in that. It’s not something I can do easily, but I can certainly see the value in watching how the men will understand opposite points of view, without necessarily adopting the opposing views, but incorporating them into their perspective. So, in that sense, men can be more balanced than women.

When I say that we tended to be more self‑enclosed at Ananda during the initial years, I mean that there was less ability to integrate diverse lifestyles and attitudes. There was more of a pressure toward “Everybody should think this way.” And I think that’s one of the weaknesses I sense in myself, that I tend to reject different views. But I think that learning to see the broader perspective, even if you don’t act on it, gives you a much more expansive consciousness. It makes you more effective, because you can recognize the other person’s strengths. And whereas women will say “I don’t want to have anything to do with it,” men will tend to assess it and ask, “What is that opinion?”

I’m being a little vague, but I’m thinking of some political situations we’ve had in the community. We’ve always had some kind of political battle going on with the people who live in the immediate area, over planning issues, development issues, and over expanding the community. And I’ve seen men be able to sit down and discuss opposing viewpoints with a lot more objectivity than the women, generally.

Q: This is tangential, but from what you’ve said, it sounds as if, over the years, there’s never been a real gender power struggle at Ananda, and that the women have always been given an equal voice and equal respect from the start. Which is extraordinary, if it’s true, because men tend to want to take charge. Is there a new form that’s being developed, where women’s views can actually be given equal weight, and not just paid lip service?

Devi: I think that because Ananda was a pioneering work, there was a great deal of equality from the outset. There wasn’t a system where the men would do this and the women would do that. Always, everybody did everything. Women drove tractors and worked on the water lines, and men took care of kids and did secretarial jobs. Everybody was trying to make things happen as well as we could, and we didn’t stop to think, oh, well, are you a man or a woman? We just thought, who can do this? Who’s interested in doing this? And it evolved from there.

So it’s very interesting to me, because Ananda has had a divergent evolution within the larger culture, where women’s issues have been such a screaming focus of attention. For example, people will sometimes come here from that environment and feel offended if we use the masculine pronoun for God.

I don’t mean to separate us from the experience of the wider culture, but I really think it’s been less of an issue here, because we’ve never felt there was a distinction. And it’s true on a racial level, too. We have just one black couple living in the community at present, and Dianna was telling me that a black woman from Sacramento came up for a visit and asked her, “What does it feel like to be the only black woman in the community?” Dianna looked at her and said, “Honestly, I never thought about it.”

So, on a certain level, we’ve enjoyed a freedom from defining ourselves as men or women or black or white or Christian or Jewish – all these distinctions that are given so much weight in the world. But that’s not to say that we shouldn’t try to understand the problems. The point I was wanting to make is that because we started from a basis of equality, we didn’t ever feel that we had to fight our way to the top, or wrest from men the positions they had, because responsibility and leadership naturally fell equally on the shoulders of the women. Position and leadership fell on the shoulders of those who were attuned with what Ananda was doing, and were willing to take it on, and be capable of doing it.

Not to say that leadership is the only valued position in the community – far from it. And that’s important – that we don’t give leadership positions more status than we give to somebody who’s doing a menial job. There might be somebody who has a great deal of personal and spiritual depth and integrity, and that person may have much more value to the community than somebody who’s in an administrative position. I think it all comes back to the thought that our values are not anything external – being a man or a woman, intelligent, stupid, rich, poor, black, or white. It’s evaluated much more on the quality of who we are on an inner level.

And then, how does that apply to the world at large? Well, certainly we need to begin breaking down these external evaluations of who people are, and try to look at people more in terms of their own worth. And if somebody is the president of the United States but they’re a crook, whether they’re a man or a woman, what difference does it make? And if somebody is a humble craftsman or laborer, but they’re living their life with honesty and integrity, that has a great deal of value.

As far as women falling into the same mistakes that men make, if you’re motivated by a desire for power or materialistic advantage, it doesn’t matter if you’re a man or a woman, you’re going to fall into the same traps.

Top row L-R: Devi, Prem (Kalyani’s son), Keshava, Asha. Seated L-R: Jyotish, Swamiji, Seva

Q: I’ll interject a personal opinion as a way of introducing another question. I think women understand men better than men understand women. I’ve begun to suspect that women have a very, very different way of viewing the world, based on inner feeling, and that men simply are rarely aware of that world. And here’s the question: Swami Kriyananda has given many women roles as teachers in the Ananda world. Do you think he did that in some sense to bring women’s energies to the fore, even a little bit beyond the balance that you were talking about? Perhaps because men haven’t learned to “see” women, because women have been put in a subordinate role in our culture for such a long time?

Devi: I think that what you’re saying is true, at least from my observation – that women tend to have a better understanding, by and large, of human nature. And I think they not only understand men better than men understand women, but they understand women better. They understand people better generally. Maybe it’s because they come from the heart. I think it may just be the way the brain works. I don’t know. There was an article in Discovery magazine recently about the extent to which the brain determines our outlook on life.

It’s a very interesting problem. But I think Swami has put women in positions of spiritual leadership, as teachers, ministers, counselors, that sort of thing, because it’s the area where they shine, and because they will naturally draw respect in that way. Obviously, we can’t be teaching and ministering all the time, but it sets an underlying tone in the community, that simply managing the day‑to‑day affairs, although it’s very important and essential to the operation of any organization, there’s a higher kind of energy that feeds the community on a different level, and without that, it would die. Both are necessary.

Q: It sounds almost as if you’re saying that women’s energies are like a bridge from the Spirit into the community.

Devi: Yes, I think that’s right.

Q: Why do women give sermons and classes so much better than men do?

Devi: Because they come from the heart. This is my observation, because I’ve given it lots of thought, too.

It isn’t that the women have more spiritual insight. There are men in the community that I recognize as having greater spiritual depth and maturity than I do. But sometimes I feel that I can reach people better, because I take away the barriers between us. A man might have a hundred times the level of spiritual understanding that I have, but he may not make the effort, or he doesn’t know how to transmit that understanding to others. Whereas I may have a little cup compared to the ocean of somebody else’s understanding, but I know how to give it to other people to drink.

Q: Do you find that meditation helps you break the barriers to understanding other people? Is that a factor?

Devi: I don’t know if that’s true or not. It’s hard to know what other people experience when they meditate. Over the years, in my own meditation, through periods of absorption in divine love, or divine joy, or divine peace, I’ve sensed increasingly that the more I can feel that sense of God’s presence within myself, the more I’m able to forget who I am when I’m giving a service or a class. And I just try to share with them that feeling that I have in meditation. And, very often, I won’t even remember what I’ve said during a class, because I’m not thinking so much about the ideas that I want to convey, and I’m feeling more that I’m trying to share an experience with them.

There are all these books that explain how men and women communicate differently, but men basically communicate to exchange information, whereas women basically communicate to bond. And that’s the difference right there.

Q: Yes, I read one of those books, where the author showed how women communicate to reach agreement, where men will try to discover who’s right, or to find a solution.

Devi: Yes, and very often when a man is giving a class or a service, they’re trying to share what they consider Paramhansa Yogananda’s teachings to be – which of course is important. Of course we have to do that. But sometimes what happens is that they don’t share God’s presence as they’ve experienced it within themselves, which is the most important thing that I feel I can give. There’s one of the women ministers, and she’s one of the most inspiring teachers I’ve ever seen. I hear many other people say this, too, that whenever she gives a class or service, they’re riveted. Yet when you think of what she’s actually saying, it’s often just something like “Love God.” I mean, there isn’t a whole lot of content to it, but it changes people.

Q: If there’s anything else that occurs to you to share about the women of Ananda, please do so freely.

Devi: I think the first thing is that each individual, be it a man or a woman, needs to realize their full potential. And that’s different for everyone. For some women, their full potential will be reached through service to the home and the family, and it’s a shame for people to feel that it’s no longer a valid expression. I see many women growing on every level through their service to home and family. I see other women who need roles of leadership, or roles of serving within the larger family – the community. But it’s the same for men. For some men, their growth will come by being responsible husbands and fathers, and if they can do that, they’re doing really well. And for others, it’s taking on a broader responsibility.

I think that the more we grow in God, and the more we grow in the experience of our souls, the more we realize those two natures, male and female, within ourselves. Because they aren’t foreign to anybody. You may say it’s a mystery to you, but it could not be a mystery to you, because you’ve been a woman. I mean, we’ve been both.

When our child was being born, I said to Jyotish, “I’m a little frightened.” And he looked at me with his calm, always impersonal gaze, and he said, “Oh, Devi, you’ve had so many babies in all of your lives – you’ve had thousands and thousands of babies. You’ve had enough children to populate the city of Sacramento.” And I said, “Sacramento! All those people going to Radio Shack and Taco Bell…” And he said, “Okay, then, Benares.”

We’ve all been everything. And so it shouldn’t be a mystery. I can sometimes understand very well how men react. It may not be my own first response, but if I think about it, I realize that, oh, yeah, of course that’s their response. But I think it’s a peculiar sickness of our age that masculine and feminine forces are in opposition to each other. I really do see it as a sickness. And I think in part it’s because the world is so out of balance, in a world where balance is the natural law. And it’s so predominantly materialistic.

This could get me into trouble, but I think that in a world whose values are primarily materialistic, both the masculine and the feminine roles are thrown out of balance, because it diminishes both. Men tend to view themselves in terms of power, control, dominance, and making money. Women tend to view themselves in terms of wresting those things from men, or of using their feminine energy, sexuality and so forth, to gain control in their own unique way. And if we can move, as a culture and a civilization, toward a more spiritual point of view, I think the division between masculine and feminine energy will grow less and less. Because in the Spirit, we are God, but in the physical world we’re divided. We’re separate. And so as individuals and as a civilization, as we move closer and closer to a spiritual perspective on life, the harmony between the sexes will naturally evolve.

In some ways, women are very, very easy to understand because they let you know very easily if they’re happy or unhappy. In fact, this is what Jyotish has learned over the years. He’s figured out “This makes her unhappy, this makes her happy.” I always wanted him to do the things that would make me happy, like sending valentines and all these little things, and bringing little surprise presents, and sitting down and having a really nice talk some evenings. Not every evening, but some evenings. And finally I think he figured out that “If I do these things, she’s happy and I can go about my business.” [Laughs.] And it works.

Women need, I think, about ten times – at least – the amount of personal interaction as men need, or would initiate on their own, or even feel comfortable with, I would venture to say. And if you can just realize that, you know, it’s like watering a plant – if you don’t water it, it’s going to die, and then it withdraws and withdraws, and it’s not happy.

We’ve been married for coming on nineteen years, and actually it’s a great marriage, I have to say, in the sense that we’re both learning how to meet each other’s needs better. And for me, what I try to do is look at the things that make Jyotish happy, even if I don’t like them at all, and figure out how I can creatively support it. I mean, if he likes watching sports on television, I can either get uptight about it – I can say “I don’t want to always have the television on looking at sports.” – or I can say “Hey, you want me to make you a big bowl of popcorn while you’re watching the football game?” And that’s me looking at what makes him happy, and supporting it.

And vice versa. If you just say, “All I want is a little bit of attention.” Because that’s really nine‑tenths of what women want, is just to feel loved and needed. And if you say okay, maybe it isn’t my natural instinct to buy flowers and candy for Valentine’s Day or Mother’s Day, but, well, it means a lot to her, so I’ll do it. And it isn’t a mystery. It’s just looking very simply at what seems to make the other person happy.

It’s very simple. Most women have a tremendous capacity to give of themselves and to sacrifice, but they need to know that it’s appreciated, and they need to have it acknowledged. And then if it’s acknowledged, there’s no limit to the amount of energy they can put out to support and nurture.

A woman’s world is a delicate world. It’s a sensitive world. It’s a world of vulnerabilities, it’s a world where they instinctively know that there are large parts of the world that they can’t deal with practically, by and large: fixing machines, building buildings. They need to have a quiet sense of protectiveness and stability and security and consistency. We’ve moved so many times during our marriage – in fifteen years we moved about fourteen times. And finally it dawned on me that my home and family were what I carried within myself, and that we could move into a tent or a palace, and it was within me that the sense of home and family was created.

When Jyotish was a bachelor, his home was sort of cold and dry. It wasn’t pretty. It was very clean and livable, but it didn’t have a sense of warmth or graciousness or nurturing. And so men, I suppose, need to feel that that sense of worth and nurturing and support and selfless love will always be there for them, too. So it’s like we both have something that the other needs. So why don’t we stop fighting against it, and instead acknowledge and honor it, and do whatever we can to support it.

Q: It seems like leadership is not terribly interesting for you as a woman, but relating to people is. It seems that you’re relating to an extended family.

Devi: Yes, that’s right. I think part of what gives women their greater ability to empathize and have compassion for others, is ultimately a very deep and personal sense of life.

There’s a line from a poem by Walt Whitman that I love, “Out of the cradle, endlessly rocking.” Meaning that there’s this eternal movement of life. And in that movement, there’s suffering, there’s joy, there’s love, there’s hate, there’s sickness, there’s death and sorrow. And I think part of the reason women have more compassion is that they can stand back and see that this is the human condition. And anything I can do to help others move forward toward a greater understanding of what’s going to bring about their happiness, that’s what I want to do. And if you call that leadership, okay. Whereas I’m not sure that men see it in quite that way.