Pushtimarg in Queens

The possession and accumulation of wealth, procured for and dedicated to Lord Krishna, is an example of Pushtimarg's departure from traditions of asceticism. As one devotee in Queens, Hasmukh Shah, writes on the temple's website, 'a devotee is never advised to abandon his family or his basic worldly responsibilities.'[32] Bennett notes that by 'dedicating all of one's efforts and gains to the service of Lord Krishna means that both the activity of acquiring wealth and wealth itself are rendered sacred by a process of consecration.'[33] Accordingly, many members of the New York Pushtimarg community are involved in business ventures and come from urban business caste families in Gujarat. The 'symbiotic' relationship between the Gujarati urban business castes and Pushtimarg began when Vallabhacharya's son, Vitthalnathji, 'toured Gujarat six times between 1543 and 1581 with the intention of raising money to fund the luxurious programme of devotional worship he had introduced in his temple on Govardhan Hill in Braj.' [34] Today, donations from this group of Gujarati businessmen and others around the world have made the haveli in Nathdwara, where the first svarup of Srinathji resides, the second richest temple in India. From early in the history of the Pushtimarg sampradaya, monetary support has been one of the fundamental ways of performing seva for Lord Krishna.

The Sampradaya as a Sectarian Form of Hinduism

My examination of the relationship between the Vaishnav Temple in New York and the Pushtimarg community in India can help to provide answers for why the Holliswood temple considers itself part of a sampradaya. Approaching this question will, in turn, illuminate some meanings of the term sampradaya. I have attempted to demonstrate that many of the ritual practices, manifestations of seva, and demographics of the Vaishnav temple in Queens correspond in numerous significant fact ways to Pushtimarg temple life in India. Though differences in when darsan occurs, for example, or how satsang is organized do exist, devotees in India and New York profess many similar beliefs about how Srinathji is to be worshipped and what the ideal devotee should be like. These correspondences demonstrate that a unique system of teachings, first promulgated by the guru-founder Vallabhacharya and later built upon and institutionalized by his son Vittalnathji, holds a powerful influence over the devotional expressions of Pushtimarg Vaishnavs all over the world. The teachings attributed to Vallabhacharya unite this world-wide group of devotees and give them their specific, Pushtimarg identity within Hinduism.[35] These teachings are in turn sustained and passed on by the guru-descendants, who initiate devotees into the path and sanctify events with their blessings and discourses. The preservation, reinforcement, and transmission of the guru's teachings, which maintain the connection between guru and devotee, comprise some of the central features of an organizational structure called the sampradaya.

The term sampradaya has often been translated as 'sect' in scholarly writing about the followers of gurus like Ramanuja, Caitanya, Vallabha, etc.[36] 'Sect' is also given as the translation for sampradaya by some devotees at the Holliswood temple. As both Barz and Bennett point out, however, certain common connotations of the term 'sect' do not entirely accord with the meaning of sampradaya. Foremost among the differences in meaning is that 'sect' often implies some kind of secession from a wider organized group or church;[37] sampradaya, on the other hand, primarily signifies the channels through which the teachings of a spiritual preceptor are passed on. Bennett provides a comprehensive definition of sampradaya that is clearly illustrated in the context of Pushtimarg in New York:

The sampradaya is conceived as a vehicle for the continuous transmission of sacred tradition from generation to generation. The tradition includes esoteric knowledge revealed to the founder by a divinity, along with scriptures, devotional songs, ritual paraphenalia, styles of worship, and so on, while its transmission through time and space is effected by a line of preceptors serving as a channel for the preservation of the means of salvation and reproducing over and over again the unique spiritual personality of the founder.[38]

The Pushtimarg sampradaya came into being not when Vallabhacharya produced the esoteric knowledge that comprises Pushtimarg doctrine, but when he had children. Vallabhacharya's son Vittalnathji, and his descendants, provided a vehicle by which the teachings of the guru-founder could be authentically transmitted. Sampradaya can also be glossed as 'lineage,' often referring to a lineage of gurus, each building on the previous guru's teachings. This translation is applicable to the Pushtimarg sampradaya in so far as this sampradaya does have a lineage, based on birth, of gurus going back to Vallabhacharya. But these descendants, with the possible exception of Vittalnathji, have served to maintain and transmit the first guru's teachings rather than build on them. The guru-descendants reproduce for later generations the consecration and blessings that the first Pushtimarg initiates received in Vallabhacharya's presence.

The gurus' roles as sanctifier and spiritual guide were in full evidence when one of the guru-descendants visited the Vaishnav Temple of New York for Vallabhacharya jayanti this year. His presence in the yatra served to sanctify the event and his discourse to reinforce the guru-founder's teachings. Maintaining and transmitting Pushtimarg tradition also, of course, depends on the devotional involvement of members of the sampradaya themselves. Their faith in Pushtimarg teachings and desire to perform seva are indexes by which to judge the well-being and vibrancy of the sampradaya. In presenting cultural shows, for example, at the Vallabhacharya jayanti, stories about Krishna and Vallabhacharya's life were passed on to the second generation. From a very young age, the children of Pushtimarg devotees receive instruction from their parents in the significance of seva to Srinathji. The Gujarati classes, youth committee meetings, and festivals are all venues for the transmission of tradition to the next generation (as to whether the second generation accepts and internalizes that tradition is another matter). Pushtimarg devotees have extended the sampradaya to New York by maintaining their belief in the traditions and doctrines of Pushtimarg and nurturing a context where the teachings of the guru-founder can flourish.

Barz and Bennett both point out that in addition to signifying 'a vehicle for the continuous transmission of a sacred tradition,'[39] the term sampradaya, in the context of Pushtimarg, also carries with it 'the sense of an exclusive body separated from other groups that is so fundamental to the meaning of 'sect' in English.'[40] This aspect of the Pushtimarg sampradaya has been amply apparent in both my textual and observational studies and has led me to conclude that the term 'sect' can be appropriately used as a translation for sampradaya. A principal example of exclusivity and separation in Pushtimarg can be found in the significance of the initiation ceremony to join the sampradaya. In Vallabhacharya's thought all jivas are contaminated by dosas, impurities, during the Kali Yuga and can only purify themselves by completely surrendering to Lord Krishna.[41] This dedication of one's self and possessions to Lord Krishna is ritually enacted through reciting the Brahmasambandha mantra in the presence of a guru-descendant. After undergoing this rite of initiation, the devotee's jiva is considered purified and, therefore, 'fit for communion with Krishna.'[42] The initiation marks the beginning of the devotee's attitudinal shift from the laukika'all that is associated solely with the profane, superficial world'to the alaukika, that which is transcendent, sacred, and filled with an awareness of Sri Krishna.[43]

Vallabhacharya considered the devotee's desire to receive the Brahmasambandha mantra, a manifestation of Krishna's will. Only those whom Krishna chooses to enter the sampradaya will feel the desire to perform seva to him and seek out a guru to receive initiation. Mrudula Marfatia calls Vallabhacharya a 'thorough Predestinarian' because he believed that it was only Krishna's grace and will, not the actual efforts and inclinations of the prospective devotee, that determined an individual's fate.[44] For this reason, a Pushtimarg website writes that 'anybody can be admitted in to Pushti Sect but not everybody.'[45] By this they mean that people of any sex, caste, or nationality can join the sampradaya, but only those who Krishna has chosen to join will feel the desire to seek initiation. Salvation is, in other words, only available to a select, pre-determined group of individuals. When I addressed this matter with Hasmukh Shah and other devotees at the Vaishnav Temple of New York, they affirmed the view and reiterated that if one feels the desire to join the sampradaya, then he or she has been chosen.

The distinction that Pushtimarg doctrine makes between those jivas outside the sampradaya who are still contaminated by dosas (impurities) and those within whom Krishna has chosen to be purified, gives rise to the sampradaya's self-designation as a satsang, or 'society of the righteous.' [46] Barz's study of traditional Pushtimarg doctrine leads him to conclude that 'Vallabhacharya's movement in particular did not look favorably upon the ordinary world...the sampradaya became a fortress inside of which the seva of Sri Krishna, the dharma required of all jivas, was practiced...Ideally, the sevakas of Vallabhacharya would not even associate with the members of other bhaktimargi sects.'[47] This separation between the Pushtimarg community and the outside world is reflected in the cosmological conception of the haveli as 'the threshold between two contrasting worlds (loka). Outside is the ordinary, mundane (laukika) world populated by souls which are spiritually ignorant, whereas inside is the sacred (alaukika) other-world where Krishna performs his eternal lila, a refuge for divine souls (daivi jiva) enlightened by the grace of Krishna.'[48] The Pushtimarg satsang is conceived by the sampradaya's literature as an exclusive community of divinely chosen individuals who should ideally fraternize and worship with like-minded sevakas of Lord Krishna. At the Vaishnav temple of New York, however, I have not heard the term satsang used to mean the wider Pushtimarg community; it has only been used to refer to the monthly gatherings for singing kirtan mentioned above.

The distinction made in the sampradaya's literature between the alaukika Pushtimarg satsang and the laukika outside world extends to how Krishna is perceived among the multiple gods of the Hindu tradition. After a someone is initiated into the sampradaya, Krishna is ideally the only god who is to be worshipped. Some have called Vallabhacharya a monotheist because of his complete focus on Krishna as deity. One devotee at a satsang in New York told me that Srinathji is like the Father of Christianity and Allah of Islam. This form of monotheism, however, is not equivalent to that of Mosaic religion. Vallabhacharya identifies Krishna with Param Brahman and all of the other gods of Hinduism as parts or aspects of his all-encompassing being. The Pushtimarg view of gods other than Krishna is not that they do not exist but that they are inferior to and dependent on Lord Krishna's existence. One devotee at the Pushtimarg temple in New York told me that if the divine is compared to a tree, then gods like Shiva and Ganesh would be the leaves and Krishna would be the roots. He said that because he wants to direct his bhakti straight to the source of the divine, watering the roots of the tree, he only worships Krishna. Vertovec observed a similar reaction to Hindu gods other than Krishna among Gujarati Pushtimargis in Wandsworth, London. He found that 'strict Pushtimargis would not visit the Radha-Krishna temple because of its attached Ambamata-Shiva temple, which the Pushtimargis consider inappropriate or even spiritually rather base.'[49]

Following from this conception of Krishna's relationship to the other gods, Pushtimarg doctrine makes a distinction between the way that members of the sampradaya worship Krishna' seva'and the Maryadamarg (Path of Rules) way of propitiating the other Hindu gods, which is puja or karmakhanda. Bennett describes how Pushtimarg devotees he interviewed considered puja to be 'bound by formal rules and regulations whereas seva is the spontaneous outflowing of love for Krishna which transcends all concern for proper ceremony.'[50] This explanation is interesting considering that the Pushtimarg worship I observed in Queens can be exceedingly ritualized and methodically regulated. Bennett's interviewee appears to assume that though there are prescribed ways to perform seva, the attitudes and motivations brought to the performance of seva and puja differ. When I asked a devotee in Queens about the seva/puja difference, he also said that seva is distinguished from puja by the prema, love, that fills the Pushtimarg devotee's worship of Krishna. The sampradaya's focus on Krishna as Supreme God and the numerous distinctions made between the alaukika satsang and the laukika world that is beyond, emphasize the sampradaya's exclusivity and sectarianism within Hinduism. Devotees at the Vaishnav Temple of New York have, to a certain degree, preserved these features of the Pushtimarg sampradaya, and therefore, constitute a sectarian form of Hinduism in the North American diaspora. The members of this temple are actively engaged in the transmission of sacred tradition by performing seva to Lord Krishna and believing in the sectarian doctrines attributed to Vallabhacharya, while also, though I will examine this in more detail in the next section, negociating boundaries between themselves and the wider Hindu community of New York. In the next section I will turn to how Pushtimarg devotees navigate these boundaries and how porous or rigid they are considered in the context of New York Hinduism.

The North American Hindu Diaspora, Ecumenicism, and Sectarianism

In this last section I will examine the relationship of the Vaishnav Temple of New York with the ecumenical, trans-sectarian forms of Hinduism that have become dominant in many North America Hindu temples. Furthermore, I will investigate how regional identities relate to questions of sectarianism and ecumenicism in the Hindu diaspora. A number of scholars of diasporic Hinduism have noted that as many Hindu communities in North America organize themselves into trusts and construct temples, one of the guiding principles of their efforts is inclusivity.[51] In decisions about the principal deity to be enshrined in the temple, the language of the temple's proceedings, and the cultural presentations offered, the foremost concern of Boards of Trustees in temples all over North America is how to appeal to as many different kinds of Hindus as possible (across divisions of caste, region, language, and sect). A form of Hinduism that many consider unique to America, an 'ecumenical Hinduism,' has resulted and has come to be prevalent in some of the major temple complexes of North America (e.g., the Ganesh Temple of Flushing, Divya Dham, the Hindu Temple of Ottawa, The Shiva-Vishnu Temple of Livermore). Raymond Brady Williams provides a definition for this 'ecumenical Hinduism:'

An ecumenical Hinduism is developing in the United States that unites deities, rituals, sacred texts, and people in temples and programs in ways that would not be found together in India. In temples and centers created on an ecumenical model, emphasis is placed upon an all-India Hindu 'great tradition,' on devotion to major deities, and upon some elements of the Sanskrit tradition...Languages used are Sanskrit for rituals and English for instruction, commentary, and business.[52]

This fusion of many different elements from the disparate conceptions of Hinduism all over India is intended to create a more unified sense of community among those living in the North American diaspora. Radhika Sekhar describes how the drive for inclusivism led the founders of the Hindu Temple of Ottawa to decide that 'although regional variations would be accommodated 'within reason,' it was to be a 'joint temple,' eventually unifying Ottawa Hindus in a single temple culture. 'After all,' it was argued, 'We are all Hindu' and the temple brochure proclaims in musketeer like fashion: 'One in All and All in One.''[53] The urge to appear as one culture and one community has led to innovation and modifications in how Hindus worship and how they re-create their religious identities for the diaspora.

A major context for the application of inclusive principles in the construction of North American Hindu temples has been in the selection of a central deity(ies) for the mulasthana (inner sanctum). John Hawley notes that Ganesh was chosen as the central deity at the Ganesh Temple in Flushing, in part, because he 'is a trans-sectarian figure worshipped by Hindus of many inclinations, and therefore ideally suited to a temple intended, at least in its origins, to appeal to Hindus whose religious backgrounds might have separated them back home.'[54] By selecting Ganesh as the central deity, the leaders of this Hindu temple found a way of providing something for everyone in the figure of one deity. Another approach to creating a more catholic space in temples all over North America, including the Ganesha temple, is to establish shrines within one temple for deities that would traditionally not be found together in India. One common form of this approach has been to bring Shaivites and Vaishnavs together by constructing temples with both Shiva and Vishnu as the central deities. Major examples of such temples include the Shiva-Vishnu temples of Washington, D.C. and Livermore, CA. Vasudha Narayanan has noted in her article on the Penn Hills Sri Venkateswara temple that though this Srivaishnav temple does not have an image of Shiva or Devi (their is, however, an image of Shiva's son Ganesh), other Sri Venkateswara temples in America, such as those in Malibu, CA and Arora, IL, have incorporated Shaiva elements.[55] This Shaiva presence would, so far as I know, not have a similar prominence in the Sri Venkateswara temples of India like the Tiru Venkatam Temple in Andhra Pradesh. By providing for the devotional and ritual needs of numerous kinds of Hindus, many North American temples are actively engaged in fashioning a Hindu tradition that can respond to the exigencies of the diasporic condition.

The creation of inclusivist forms of Hinduism in North America has not come without much argumentation and compromise among temple founders. Radhika Sekhar describes in her study of the Hindu Temple of Ottawa that once the members of the Temple Board had worked out what deities would be featured in the temple, conflicts then arose over the materials out of which they would be sculpted, whether they could be adorned in luxurious garments, and what rituals could be performed for them.[56] On such matters the Board would split between those with a more rationalist temperament and those inclined toward bhakti, as well as along regional lines. As this temple is controlled entirely by lay members, there is no higher religious authority to which they can appeal. Sekhar writes that in such a setting, 'very often adjustments in Hindu practices are affected by the need to compromise rather than due to theological computations.'[57]

Some have come to feel uncomfortable in these environments where adjustments must be made for Hindus of many different kinds to assemble. The tensions created by regional ties in pan-Hindu settings have led some, such as the founder-president of the Hindu Malayalee group that Prema Kurien has studied, to form Hindu groups based on regional affiliation.[58] Even groups with a more regional focus, however, must negotiate divisions of caste and sect. When Kurien asked a founding member of the Organization of Hindu Malayalees about the choice of Aiyappa as the group's central deity, he said, 'we picked Aiyappa since it was the least controversial choice. He is the one deity that everyone in the group could agree on. Aiyappa worship is a unifying factor in the group since there are Vaishnavites and Shaivites and members of different castes.'[59] Moreover, the congregational forms of worship in the satsang and bala vihar that Kurien studied were new to many of the South Indian immigrants who attended. Though they may not have practiced Hinduism in this manner back in India, the members appreciated the sense of community that the congregational form of worship fostered among Los Angeles Malayalees. In both the pan-Hindu and more regionally-oriented settings, the North American context has created the need for innovative and inclusive re-interpretations of the Hindu tradition.

I have described a number of the trends in the formation of Hindu temples in North America to establish the wider context of diasporic Hinduism within which the Vaishnav Temple of New York exists. It should be clear from my presentation of these trends that temples affiliated with a sampradaya vastly differ from those taking on a more ecumenical model. As a sampradaya is a vehicle for transmitting the specific teachings of a guru-founder, many of the decisions that have had to be made by Temple Boards across the country were not a part of the creation of the Vaishnav Temple of New York.

At the Pushtimarg Temple in Queens, there has never been any need for the Board of Trustees to argue and compromise on what deity(ies) would be placed in the garbha grha. A temple would not be part of the Pushtimarg sampradaya if the central deity was not one of the svarups of Krishna that have been in the sampradaya since Vittalnathji's time. The connection of the temple in Queens to the wider Pushtimarg sampradaya led to a religious authority (a guru-descendant), Sri Indira Betiji, providing them with the svarup for the temple'even in the case of which svarups should be chosen there was no conflict for the Board as such decisions were made by those who possess higher religious authority.

The members of the Board of Trustees at the Vaishnav Temple of New York all share a devotion to a single tradition, which would rarely be the case in many of the more ecumenical temples of North America. All of the members of the Board would have received brahmasambandha and, therefore, have a commitment to Srinathji, Vallabhacharya, his teachings, and his descendants. Even on the matter of which house (gaddi) should provide spiritual guidance to the temple, there has not been, so far as I know, any contention as Sri Mathureswaraji has been the temple's spiritual advisor since its inception. Moreover, a situation, like the one Radhika Sekhar describes, where ritual procedures are decided upon by 'compromise' rather than 'theological computations' would never arise in the Vaishnav Temple of New York because such decisions would always be referred to either the priest or to Mathureswaraji. When I mentioned to a Pushtimarg devotee that questions of ritual procedure and theology are addressed by the Boards of some temples in the U.S., he immediately contrasted this to theVaishnav (Pushtimarg) temple, where such questions would always be referred to a religious authority. It is true that, just as at the Penn Hills Ventakateswara temple that Narayanan has studied, adjustments have been made in the daily Pushtimarg worship routine and festivals are celebrated to suit the secular calendar.

Nevertheless, these changes constitute some of the most notable departures from what I have been able to ascertain about Pushtimarg temple life in India. There is a strong continuity in ritual practice between Indian Pushtimarg temples and the one in Queens; modification and adaptation in practice and belief can only occur to the extent that they still remain true to the sampradaya. Temples affiliated with sampradayas represent a form of diasporic Hinduism that sharply contrasts with the ecumenical modes of worship that have become prevalent in many of North America's major temple complexes.

The Pushtimargis in Queens are not a homogeneous community, but there is among them a certain degree of uniformity in caste, region, and theological-orientation. Gujarati can be used for temple proceedings rather than English because there is an assumption that everyone hails from Gujarat (though of course this is presenting itself as a problem in the case of the second generation). The use of Gujarati in temple life is not, however, as strictly maintained as it would be in a Swaminarayan setting as Vallabhacharya was not from Gujarat, nor did he write in that language. But, like in a Swaminarayan setting, food at the mahaprashads will almost always be Gujarati (with popcorn perhaps counting as an excpetion) and many women wear Gujarati dress. A more or less uniform regional affiliation at the temple fosters, from what I have observed, a closer and more comfortable sense of community than would be the case at a temple like Divya Dham. In addition, a degree of insularity'from non-Gujarati Vaisnavs, for example'certainly results from the temple's regional focus.

The inclusivism of many Hindu temples in North America and the exclusivism of doctrinal Pushtimarg clearly account for differences such as what deities are represented in the respective temples. The Pushtimarg's exclusivism and concept of satsang should also extend into how members of the sampradaya relate to the wider Hindu community around them. Bennett reminds his readers, however, that the conception of the Pushtimarg sampradaya as a satsang, and all the exclusivist implications of that designation, is an ideal form and should not lead one to attribute an 'exaggerated sense of homogeneity and discreteness' to the sampradaya.[60] Using his ethnographic research in India to build on Barz's textually grounded statements about satsang and exclusivism, Bennett writes that Pushtimarg 'members perform varying roles outside the sectarian domain which are not necessarily abandoned on entering the temple...devotees are also heirs to a wide variety of traditions in Hinduism...which incorporate rituals which have no place in Pushtimarg and yet which are not regarded by devotees as contradicting, obstructing, or denying the approach to Krishna via the Path of Grace.'[61]

In my studies of Pushtimarg in Queens, I have found both the satsang understanding of Pushtimarg and a more porous conception of boundaries between the sampradaya and the wider Hindu community. While it is true that as a part of the sampradaya, the Vaishnav temple itself must maintain strict boundaries between itself and the wider Hindu world (in, for example, the deities represented in the temple and the rituals performed), this does not necessarily mean that members have no sense of pan-Hindu identity.

            In order to arrive at some kind of understanding of how Pushtimarg Hindus in New York mediate between their sectarian identities and their more generalized Hindu ones, I asked nearly everyone I encountered whether he visited temples other than Pushtimarg ones in the U.S. I have found, as I noted earlier in the paper, that some do not visit other temples, but they were definitely in the minority among those I spoke with. Most said that they do go to other temples, especially the Ganesh temple in Flushing, though they all had different ways of expressing this fact to me. Some said without any hesitation that they visit other temples with some frequency. Others paused, and then told me that they do, on occasion, go to other temples, while others said they go very infrequently. When I asked one gentleman this question, he paused and then gave a response that seems to explain the hesitation with which some devotees answer this question. He said that he does visit temples like the Ganesh Temple in Flushing, which is near his home, but he recognizes that not everyone agrees that this is permissible for a Pushtimargi. There is clearly a tension regarding this issue among some of the devotees. In one fascinating case of someone trying to reconcile his Pushtimarg identity with a more generalized Hindu one, a devotee at Vallabhacharya jayanti told me that he does go to the Ganesh Temple in Flushing, but when he bows to Ganesh he says, 'Jai Sri Krishna.' He clearly meant in saying this that he can bow to Ganesh and refer to him as Krishna because Ganesh is a part of Krishna's all-encompassing being. All of these devotees are clearly trying to balance the exclusivist aspects of Pushtimarg doctrine with a desire to be a part of the wider Hindu community of New York.

I decided to get a sense of whether Pushtimarg devotees in Queens visited other temples when they lived in India by first finding out if they were in the Pushtimarg sampradaya back in India and then asking about temple-going. Almost everyone that I questioned came from Pushtimarg families and a number of them said they did visit non-Pushtimarg temples in India. I speculated that perhaps because many of these devotees had come from Pushtimarg families, they felt less compelled to maintain a literal interpretation of doctrine, in the way that a recent initiate might. Their patterns of temple worship in New York and India appear to parallel Bennett's finding that 'for Pushtimargis [in Ujjain], it would be fair to say that most tend to have regular recourse to Lord Krishna, and yet visit other deities on occasions.'[62]

The male devotees of the Vaishnav Temple of New York with whom I spoke clearly conceive of themselves as both Hindu and Pushtimargi. Even a gentleman who told me that he only worships Krishna told me that Pushtimarg is a part of Hinduism. The difference between Pushtimarg devotees appears to be in how porous they conceive of the boundaries between different approaches to the practice of Hinduism. There is certainly a tension among devotees on how exclusivist and how inclusivist each Pushtimargi can be within his or her own conception of Hinduism. Some might say that Hinduism can accommodate all different kinds of paths to God, while others might believe, as Pushtimarg doctrine stipulates, that only those within the sampradaya will achieve salvation. One young devotee told us at the 'Hinduism Here' conference that he feels more oriented toward the jnana marga, but still considers himself a Pushtimargi.[63] Someone rigidly following Pushtimarg could not make such a statement because Pushtimarg was created in opposition to jnana marga groups like the Advaitins.

The way that devotees among the second generation incorporate within themselves both a Pushtimargi and a more generalized Hindu identity will certainly involve a good deal of innovation and adaptation. The question is whether, as Williams has noted in the context of Swaminarayan Hinduism,[64] this innovation and adaptation can occur in the diaspora without evolving away from the sampradaya's roots. The next step for this project would be comparative studies of the commitment and sense of bhakti that the second generation feels in Pushtimarg, Swaminarayan and other sampradayic forms of diasporic Hinduism. Bhakti in the Pushtimarg sampradaya is the foundational element in seva to Krishna. It is dependent on attachment to the deity, love for the deity, and faith in the devotional path to God. Bhakti must be inspired in the individual and sustained by religious authorities who know how to touch the devotee's heart. It remains to be seen whether second generation Pushtimargis will continue to respect the descendants of Vallabhacharya, to look to them for spiritual guidance, and continue the transmission of tradition that is so fundamental to the survival of a sampradaya.