Modern Architecture & Sacred Space

[Gauracandra]

What do you guys think of pews? The main problem I see with pews is that they take up so much space that there wouldn’t be room for dancing before the deity. But I find them organizationally very nice. I think it is a subtle difference between the aesthetics of Eastern vs. Western cultures. Eastern cultures seem to be organizationally looser and this can create a nice open atmosphere, but can also lead to a messiness. Western culture is very “cut at right angles” with everything neat and tidy, everything having its place. I do remember on my visit to the Greek Orthodox Church (see Travelogue) the guide informed us that in traditional Orthodox churches there are no pews as one should stand before the Lord.

[Gauracandra]

Here is a snippet of an article I came across that I found interestig regarding sacred architecture:

Thomas More may have been right when he said, “All places on earth are equidistant from heaven.” Perhaps any place where humans choose to build a sacred shrine can become a holy place and satisfy their need to locate worship. But whether divinely appointed or humanly chosen, the places people regard as holy, from shrine to cathedral to modest parish church, are important to them. These are the places where faith becomes concrete. Without them, without at least one of them to claim as his or her own, the individual is a religious orphan, homeless, destitute. For many theologically literate people, the “place” of religious experience is a local church, a particular building on a particular street in a particular town. It is the place where we caught our first glimpse of God’s love, and the building itself played a decisive part in that experience. It is sad that relatively little thought is given to the design, construction and maintenance of churches being built now, the churches where our children will catch their glimpses. We tend to forget how important a church building’s physical structure is to the religious experience of the men and women who will call it their place, who will worship there, who will be molded by it. A church building, like the people it serves, is a living thing. It is conceived, it is born, it flourishes and does its appointed work, and it dies. It does all these things well or poorly depending on its fitness to serve as a meeting place for people searching for God. It demonstrates God’s concern, and his compassion, for his people. It shares in a triune relationship with God and with his people. A church is at its best when its form and style are determined by the people who worship in it. It most clearly transmits its truth when it gives material expression to their beliefs, when it effectively facilitates their worship. Frank Lloyd Wright was correct when he allowed that the best of buildings is the indigenous folk building. A church, then, should be a place whose shape and decor emerge from the collective religious experience of the people who, in the words of Epictetus, “enjoy the great festival of life” there together. It’s a great pity when a congregation does not shape its own place of worship, for a building can lead people into moods and practices that might be wrong for them. “We shape our buildings,” Winston Churchill wrote; “thereafter they shape us.” But they shape us even when we don’t shape them. The less control people have over shaping their buildings, the more likely those buildings are to be misshapen and to misshape. The degree to which a congregation is able to design and construct its own building depends, of course, upon the vision and skills of its members. Few congregations have the necessary conceptual, architectural and carpentry gifts to mold and make a building with their own minds and hands. But as Frank Lloyd Wright said, an architect should first be a poet, and the good poet observes closely and listens carefully. It shouldn’t be too much to ask an architect to observe the people who will worship in the building and listen to them before beginning the blueprints. The designer should make the structure express them in such a way that they will continue on their path of progress without losing their way. The building should be not the architect’s but the congregation’s.

[stonehearted]

Can you tell me where you found it?

[Gauracandra]

I stumbled across the following site:

http://www.religion-online.org

It has a lot of articles on various topics from a Christian perspective. Look under architecture and they have a few articles. The article I quoted makes a lot of sense to me. I first noticed this when I drove down to Alachua and saw their temple. The Alachua temple itself is fairly simple. But just walking in I felt a certain happiness. You could tell it was designed to be a temple. That someone put thought into how it should be presented. It was really nice, and simple, and open.

I think historically Iskcon has not designed their own temples in the U.S. For the most part I think this was for practical purposes. It was easier to take out a mortgage on an existing property, and use that as a temple. But we have to remember that the design of a building is incorporated into its price tag. So really, we could spend the same amount for a building and make it look as we wish. It would just require assembling the resources ahead of time (rather than over a 30 year mortgage). In addition, temple design says something about the philosophy in subtle and direct ways. Sometimes you won't even be able to express in words what the philosophy is, but the look of the temple impresses it upon you in a subtle manner.

[Siri]

I have vistied the Bahai Lotus temple in Delhi a few years back. It looked very beautiful and had a wonderful atmosphere which attracted people from various walks of life. since I live in Sydney, the temple architecture is to a large extent a copy of the Sydney Opera House. But it works! See attached photo.

That's way cooler than the Sydney opera house, it's a shame it's not featured in a more attractive setting like Sydney where it would get more exposure, I think it would look nice in the middle of a large lake or harbour.
Whats it like inside?

[Gauracandra]

Yes, that is an interesting interpretation for a modern temple. And you are right, it does look abit like the Sydney Opera House. Interesting historical footnote: when the Sydney Opera House was first built, I understand everyone hated it; but now it is considered a landmark in architecture, and one of the worlds most recognizable buildings. I like it myself.

[Gauracandra]

This is the temple design for the future Mayapur Temple of the Vedic Planetarium.

[Gauracandra]

[theist]

WOW

[Gauracandra]

It'll be AWESOME. But they need to think of building up the entire area. A huge temple needs plenty of infrastructure. Its not enough for it to be on its own. They should build up education, health, sewage systems, businesses etc.... Then it will be truly amazing.

[theist]

Prabhupada's vision I believe. Jaya to their service. I would imagine a lot of infrastructure would be required. having never been there i can't really get a picture of the surrounding terrain.

Not to mention some substance to live in the form.And just a little more cash than they have, otherwise it's all pie in the sky.
Have to admit it's nice pie in the sky though. I especially like the folliage.

Actually if the truth be known this was one of the visions and wishes of Srila Sridhara Maharaj that Prabhupad wanted to fulfill and i would say they both shared in their intimate exchanges. Initially the present temple that is dedicated to Prabhupad was originally the heartchild of Srila Sridhara Maharaj based on Sri Sanatans Brhat Bhagavatamrtm the idea was to show the different levels of God Realization rising thru the planetary systems and ultimately culminating in Radha Dasyam in Goloka.
But somewhere along the way the vision was changed, ambushed. I'm told by Bhavananda and perhaps others. A crying shame because all perfection is reached by doing the will of the Mahabhagavats. Everything is set right when Krsnas' devotee is pleased.

It would take many years just to build up the hill in that picture it's all flat ground and would take massive amounts of excavation plus it's not all that stable, alot of water flowing on both sides and underground.
But where there is a will there is a way.
A pure devotee can do it.

[theist]

Based on Brihad Bhagavatamritam huh? Never heard that. That is a wonderful vision. What is it now?

People can nah say all they like, but everything we see has manifested from the conceptionual plane. It starts with a clear sustained vision.

[atma]

???

[theist]

I thought it was set on a hill at first also. i believe if you look more carefully you will see that it really is set on a flat plane. i think the trees cause the optical illusion