Keys To Successful Religions

[gHari 0]

In SB 6.16.41 Srila Prabhupada notes one weakness which will eventually topple a religion. Therefore we should emphasise this aspect and make it the strength of our basic promotional structure:

<center>viSama-matir na yatra nRNAM

tvam aham iti mama taveti ca yad anyatra

viSama-dhiyA racito yaH

sa hy avizuddhaH kSayiSNur adharma-bahulaH

</center>

viSama--unequal (your religion, my religion; your belief, my belief); matiH--consciousness; na--not; yatra--in which; nRNAm--of human society; tvam--you; aham--I; iti--thus; mama--my; tava--your; iti--thus; ca--also; yat--which; anyatra--elsewhere (in religious systems other than bhAgavata-dharma); viSama-dhiyA--by this unequal intelligence; racitaH--made; yaH--that which; saH--that system of religion; hi--indeed; avizuddhaH--not pure; kSayiSNuH--temporary; adharma-bahulaH--full of irreligion.

 

Being full of contradictions, all forms of religion but bhAgavata-dharma work under conceptions of fruitive results and distinctions of "you and I" and "yours and mine." The followers of SrImad-BhAgavatam have no such consciousness. They are all KRSNa conscious, thinking that they are KRSNa's and KRSNa is theirs. There are other, low-class religious systems, which are contemplated for the killing of enemies or the gain of mystic power, but such religious systems, being full of passion and envy, are impure and temporary. Because they are full of envy, they are full of irreligion.

 

PURPORT

BhAgavata-dharma has no contradictions. Conceptions of "your religion" and "my religion" are completely absent from bhAgavata-dharma. BhAgavata-dharma means following the orders given by the Supreme Lord, BhagavAn, as stated in Bhagavad-gItA: sarva-dharmAn parityajya mAm ekaM zaraNaM vraja [bg. 18.66]. God is one, and God is for everyone. Therefore everyone must surrender to God. That is the pure conception of religion. Whatever God orders constitutes religion (dharmaM tu sAkSAd bhagavat-praNItam [sB 6.3.19]). In bhAgavata-dharma there is no question of "what you believe" and "what I believe." Everyone must believe in the Supreme Lord and carry out His orders. AnukUlyena kRSNAnuzIlanam: [Cc. Madhya 19.167] whatever KRSNa says--whatever God says--should be directly carried out. That is dharma, religion.

 

If one is actually KRSNa conscious, he cannot have any enemies. Since his only engagement is to induce others to surrender to KRSNa, or God, how can he have enemies? If one advocates the Hindu religion, the Muslim religion, the Christian religion, this religion or that religion, there will be conflicts. History shows that the followers of religious systems without a clear conception of God have fought with one another. There are many instances of this in human history, but systems of religion that do not concentrate upon service to the Supreme are temporary and cannot last for long because they are full of envy. There are many activities directed against such religious systems, and therefore one must give up the idea of "my belief" and "your belief." Everyone should believe in God and surrender unto Him. That is bhAgavata-dharma.

 

BhAgavata-dharma is not a concocted sectarian belief, for it entails research to find how everything is connected with KRSNa (IzAvAsyam idaM sarvam [izo mantra 1]). According to the Vedic injunctions, sarvaM khalv idaM brahma: Brahman, the Supreme, is present in everything. BhAgavata-dharma captures this presence of the Supreme. BhAgavata-dharma does not consider everything in the world to be false. Because everything emanates from the Supreme, nothing can be false; everything has some use in the service of the Supreme. For example, we are now dictating into a microphone and recording on a dictating machine, and thus we are finding how the machine can be connected to the Supreme Brahman. Since we are using this machine in the service of the Lord, it is Brahman. This is the meaning of sarvaM khalv idaM brahma. Everything is Brahman because everything can be used for the service of the Supreme Lord. Nothing is mithyA, false; everything is factual.

 

BhAgavata-dharma is called sarvotkRSTa, the best of all religious systems, because those who follow bhAgavata-dharma are not envious of anyone. Pure bhAgavatas, pure devotees, invite everyone, without envy, to join the KRSNa consciousness movement. A devotee is therefore exactly like the Supreme Personality of Godhead. SuhRdaM sarva-bhUtAnAm: [bg. 5.29] he is the friend of all living entities. Therefore this is the best of all religious systems. Whereas so-called religions are meant for a particular type of person who believes in a particular way, such discrimination has no place in KRSNa consciousness, or bhAgavata-dharma. If we scrutinize the religious systems meant for worship of demigods or anyone else but the Supreme Personality of Godhead, we will find that they are full of envy and therefore impure.

 

[gHari 0]

How's this for coincidence: I couldn't remember the nature of the second poster I had painted at the church that day. Now, in the translation of that last Bhagavatam shloka, it magically appears.

 

<center><table width="60%" border=5 bgcolor=yellow><td width="100%"><center><H3><font color=blue>

I AM GOD'S

 

GOD IS MINE

</h3></center></font></td></table></center>Acintya!<font color="#f7f7f7">

 

[This message has been edited by gHari (edited 04-01-2002).]

[beemasane 0]

aren't these tasty little miracles a joy? when the Guru sees you doing so nicely he gives you these nice reciprocations..good for you... all glories to Gurudeva... hello from beemasane.

[beemasane 0]

thread flame out?

[Guest guest]

A religion will be known in the long run not by its teachings alone by the effect of its teachings on its followers. If the clergy involves in illicit behaviour, it will lead to infamy of the church. If the muslim men oppress women, it will show Islam in bad light - perhaps rightly so - . So one of the key things to successful religion is the ability to create a number of good people.

 

Second thing is to create a number of bold people who will come out and defend their faith. When Hindus failed to defend themselves against the violent muslims and cunning christian missionaries much of Hinduism got destroyed.

 

Thridly, it is important to cut across national boundaries and help the devotees not only spiritually but also materially. This has two aspects - one is charity. A religionist has to engage in charitable activities unless he is absorbed in pure devotion and has no time for any thing alse. When a religion is not seen in charitable acts, it is seen as without a heart of compassion. Another aspect is mutually beneficial relationship in matters of business, marriage and education. The fact that we are spread all over the world should be used to network and help each other succeed in business/education/marriage.

 

 

[Guest guest]

A religion will be known in the long run not by its teachings alone by the effect of its teachings on its followers. If the clergy involves in illicit behaviour, it will lead to infamy of the church. If the muslim men oppress women, it will show Islam in bad light - perhaps rightly so - . So one of the key things to successful religion is the ability to create a number of good people.

 

Second thing is to create a number of bold people who will come out and defend their faith. When Hindus failed to defend themselves against the violent muslims and cunning christian missionaries much of Hinduism got destroyed.

 

Thridly, it is important to cut across national boundaries and help the devotees not only spiritually but also materially. This has two aspects - one is charity. A religionist has to engage in charitable activities unless he is absorbed in pure devotion and has no time for any thing alse. When a religion is not seen in charitable acts, it is seen as without a heart of compassion. Another aspect is mutually beneficial relationship in matters of business, marriage and education. The fact that we are spread all over the world should be used to network and help each other succeed in business/education/marriage.

 

 

[Guest guest]

A religion will be known in the long run not by its teachings alone by the effect of its teachings on its followers. If the clergy involves in illicit behaviour, it will lead to infamy of the church. If the muslim men oppress women, it will show Islam in bad light - perhaps rightly so - . So one of the key things to successful religion is the ability to create a number of good people.

 

Second thing is to create a number of bold people who will come out and defend their faith. When Hindus failed to defend themselves against the violent muslims and cunning christian missionaries much of Hinduism got destroyed.

 

Thridly, it is important to cut across national boundaries and help the devotees not only spiritually but also materially. This has two aspects - one is charity. A religionist has to engage in charitable activities unless he is absorbed in pure devotion and has no time for any thing alse. When a religion is not seen in charitable acts, it is seen as without a heart of compassion. Another aspect is mutually beneficial relationship in matters of business, marriage and education. The fact that we are spread all over the world should be used to network and help each other succeed in business/education/marriage.

 

 

[Gauracandra 1]

Not all organizational structures are equal. This too is an important aspect to the success or failure of a religion. In my opinion, simply being objective (not saying right or wrong), but the guru based system leads naturally to a division and loss of focus over time. Each succession breaks down, and the united energy gets dissipated. The most successful (in terms of pushing forward a mass movement) are those that can maintain unity. Almost without exception these are top-down organizational structures. Such organizations can mobilize resources, people, energy towards very focused, common goals. And this can be done over long periods of time (hundreds of years). With such consistent, focused energy, these religions succeed.

[Jagat 1]

Though this discussion in general is of interest to me, I would like to address the question of institutions brought up by Gauracandra in the previous post. Rather than contributing anything right away, consider this recent letter from Tripurari Maharaj—

 

Question: I find Krsna Consciousness to be such a perfect spiritual science. There is so much beauty in every aspect: aesthetically, intellectually, musically, etc..

 

The only thing that bothers me is the treatment/attitude towards women by some devotees, often with Prabhupada's purports in hand. I understand there is a difference between a spiritual truth, and the cultural details of the material world, but I don't think that the general public who receive Prabhupada's books are readily able to make that distinction. Not only that, but it is obvious a lot of new and old devotees can't either. I wish people reading Prabhupada's books could see his love for his spiritual daughters.

 

As a Krsna conscious movement how do you see us showing the world what we're really about, if we have these transcendental messages littered with Chanakya quotes and misused by people with agendas. It is painful to feel embarrassed about bringing my (quite intelligent and independent) female friends to the temple sometimes. I know Prabhupada did adapt to suite the times, and that our society has matured since days gone by, but how can we get our movement to bloom to its full potential with cohesive and respectful relationships among its members that will set a standard inspiring society to follow?

 

REPLY:You will have to join those who are also concerned with these issues, and focus your inspiration to preach as well as your funds to facilitate preaching on those who are already involved in the tradition but are carrying around the baggage of nonessentials in the name of Gaudiya Vaisnavism.

 

While this may alienate some, it will enliven and bring together others who are like minded, and a new incarnation of the movement will manifest that will be dynamic, alive, and vital. This then will be the movement that progressive people identify with. It should not necessarily be an institution one joins, but rather an essential spiritual ideal of Gaudiya Vaisnavism that people can identify with and form a loose association around its precepts as articulated in contemporary Gaudiya Vaisnava literature. The exclusive purpose of such an association should be to hear and chant about Krsna.

 

Swami B.V.Tripurari

[abhi_the_great 0]

Originally posted by Jagat:

Though this discussion in general is of interest to me, I would like to address the question of institutions brought up by Gauracandra in the previous post. Rather than contributing anything right away, consider this recent letter from Tripurari Maharaj-

 

Does this mean there is no difference between the male and female?

 

Men are naturally better in some activities and women are naturally better in some other activities. They are complimentary but not equal.

 

According to Indian culture, ladies are respected and are strong willed. But, they voluntarily take a back seat to their husband. This still holds true in these changing times.

 

I wd also note that there is not so much discrimination on ladies in ISKCON. Yes, its true that they might not dance in the front of the deities in some temples. But there are temples where both genders get equal space right in the front. But it is a very bad sign when ladies do not make space when sannyasis want to pay obeisances.

 

Women's lib - its more of a western idea than a vedic idea. But if KC has to make it big in the western countries, do we have to make some amends, where ladies have equal everything? Will it guarantee a succesful religion?

 

 

[Gauracandra 1]

This was brought up before - how do we define success? Granted a feeling of being spiritual can be a non-objective sign of success. If that is the case then every religion (of 1 or 1 million) has equal claim to being as successful as any other religion. Numbers don't prove that there is this spiritual feeling, though if it is based on an individual person's opinion, then they too can just as easily claim success as any other religion.... BUT they have one extra proof of their success and that is an objective measurement in terms of numbers.

 

I believe that on a numerical basis (an objective basis for measuring the ability of a religion to replicate itself in society) there are structural reasons for success and failure. This has nothing to do with spiritual purity (or impurity), but rather deals means of focusing energy. If your energy is dispersed to the sides (multiple gurus for instance) then you 1) don't develop critical mass and thus momentum 2) develop much more philosophical deviations (each guru adding their own spin, or angle) 3) do not develop a sense of being a people (which I believe is fundamental towards real unity, not coexistence).

 

This is a serious question, and I don't mean to be controversial. But to what degree has this guru-based religious structure lead to the problems in India? I am not of the opinion that India is the 'land of milk and honey'. Some people will say everyone is united there. From what I've seen it is more accurate to say they coexist, but aren't united. That is one of the hallmarks of Western Civilization (a great civilization I might add). I think Christianity created a broad sense of peoplehood. True, every few hundred years chunks of people broke off and added their own spin, but it created a coherent ethical and moral system that united large groups of people. I'm not trying to be controversial, its just something I've thought for a long time - to what degree does the philosophy and structure of a religion aid/harm the development of society. If religion is the foundation of society, then to some degree Indian religious structures have to take responsibility for the problems in India. If we follow that path, then our energy too will be dispursed. We'll lose forward momentum, become fracture, and our energies will dissipate toward the sides. Rather than being a focused magnifying glass to burn a fire that sweeps the world, our 'light' will be unfocused, and dispursed. We'll probably last a few hundred years, with pockets of devotees here and there, then go extinct.

[Jagat 1]

Please excuse the non-sequitur here. My purpose in the previous post was not to bring up women's issues, though I suppose that this does enter into the entire question of what makes a religion successful. I was getting at the question of institutional organization.

 

I would like to post a letter I wrote to a friend of mine, which uses categories that were mentioned in the article, a segment of which I posted on the "Siddha Pranali" thread. It is only partially relevant to this thread, but I believe that it is better placed here than starting a new one. The theme is disciple poaching by Narayan Maharaj.

 

As I have been trying to say, the Bhagavata Parampara idea is ambiguous in the following way: On the one hand it can be used to subvert old institutions and establish new ones, or it can be used to normalize or routinize the new institution.

If the idea that the charismatic leadership of a self-effulgent guru is absolutely necessary to one's spiritual life, then this is very subversive to any kind of institutionalization, hard or intermediate. The post-Chaitanya era saw a kind of entente established among all the other disciplic lines where people agreed to stop poaching each other's disciples through claiming special privilege or charisma. This was possible because all of Mahaprabhu's associates were recognized as his eternal associates and all descendants (blood or disciplic) were legitimized by virtue of their connection to them. Thus, anyone who had such a connection was "legitimate" and needed no reinitiation.

In a sense, this is what Siddhanta Saraswati is also saying. Initiation itself is secondary. It is simply the "entry ticket" to the sampradaya. Once you have your ticket, you can seek siksha and association anywhere within the wider movement with a certain increased status (dikshasti cet pranatibhis tam bhajantam isam). Naturally, there is always a certain amount of increased status awarded to those initiated by more respected gurus, but there is no need to convert precisely because Pancharatra initiation is only part of the story. Pancharatra initiation is the external proof of conversion, as it were.

 

In this way, the secondary status of Pancharatrika initiation plays into the development of an intermediate-type institutional arrangement, where there is a free flow of Bhagavata (or bhava) type relationships. Since Bhagavata "initiation" may come before or after Pancharatrika initiation, it does not necessarily require reinitiation of any type. (Take the example of Bhaktvinoda. If Jagannath Das really was more important to him that Bipin Bihari Goswami, then he should have been reinitiated by him. This of course neither did nor could ever have happened, as Jagannath Das Babaji, I am entirely sure, would have found the proposition preposterous and offensive.)

Siddhanta Saraswati, however, had another motivation for reinitiating. He wished to fundamentally reform the organization of the Gaudiya Vaishnava world. I remember that we once discussed something similar, after I wrote the first Parampara article. There you picked up on my hint that maybe Saraswati at one time was seeking to mobilize the entire GV world by emphasizing the doctrinal roots and commonality of the entire sampradaya of Mahaprabhu devotees. I do not think this any more. I think that he was looking to create a "leaner and meaner" GV, with less doctrinal liberty, tighter moral standards, and a different liturgy less oriented to the easily misunderstood esoteric aspects of GV culture, etc.

 

Thus he had to establish himself as the new charismatic authority and a strong duality between the Gaudiya Math and the rest of the sampradaya. He had to state that he himself represented the true Vaishnavism and thus undermine the legitimacy of the other Vaishnava lines. By changing the “liturgy” (no lila-kirtan or discussion, different kirtans, etc.) he also made it clear that traditional Vaishnavas could not expect to share sanga in extensive ways.

 

Once this new sampradaya was in place, however, was it then his intention to continue to undermine it by repeated revolutions, or did he wish that the standards he established be continued? If so, in what kind of institutional arrangement?

 

The concept of “self-effulgent” gurus is subversive to institutions of all kinds. Therefore, post-charismatic phases of religious movements seek the establishment of some kind of normalization, where even those who do not possess the founder’s charisma can somehow claim legitimacy to perpetuate his work and memory. As we have seen in Iskcon, any excessive claims to personal charisma in the post-charismatic phase are highly volatile and dangerous to the cohesion of the movement and its routinization, especially if these claims are not rooted in genuine spirituality.

 

Siddhanta Saraswati, as the “Institutional Religion” article shows, had a certain amount of suspicion that routinization in a "hard" type institution could ever be possible. He apparently indicated that he expect a “self-effulgent” acharya to come forth after his departure. After everyone had voted Ananta Vasudeva in, they were shocked and dismayed when he did exactly what such a charismatic leader naturally does—subverted the institution itself!! In other words, they may have been right in their recognition of Ananta Vasudeva as a genuine charismatic leader, but that is not what they were really looking for. They really wanted an institutional successor to normalize the perpetuation of the movement, but what they got was a subversive.

 

In this respect, Puri Maharaj seems to have accomplished the disruption of the movement and radically changed its institutional makeup, into a looser “intermediate” form. But, by necessity, the Gaudiya Math has to stick together. No one on his own has sufficient strength to change society, but those who appreciate Saraswati Thakur’s ideals are able to feel as thought they are part of something larger than the small math or ashram to which they belong. Though no individual necessarily has the status of the "self-effulgent" acharya, they are able to claim legitimacy by pointing to the existence of numerous other Gaudiya Maths, and can even draw on the success of other GMs to buttress their own legitimacy. Of course there is always some manoeuvring. For instance, Bodhayan Maharaj, having become acharya and successor to Puri Maharaj, seems to be making some kind of move to establish his own authenticity by preaching a little fire and brimstone, condemning moral weakness and deteriorating sense of purpose in the other GMs. As long as he doesn't overstep the accepted boundaries of etiquette, I assume that he will not be a source of disruption and remain happily within the "family."

 

The Bhagavata Parampara idea can be used to promote the establishment of “normalized” or “routinized” religion through the diminished importance it gives to Pancharatrika initiation. Thus the first commandment is: “Thou shalt not poach the disciples of other legitimately initiated Gaudiya (Math) Vaishnavas.” At the same time, it allows for free movement of disciples throughout the wider movement; thus the second commandment is: “Thou shalt not stop thy disciples from associating with Vaishnavas in other branches of the family, for Vaishnava sanga is a good thing.” Institutionally speaking, this is, of course, a reversion to the status quo ante that existed in the post-Kheturi, pre-Saraswati period.

 

Iskcon’s case is a little different, as they have, or seem to have become, a different sampradaya again. Prabhupada spoke against the GM; the Iskcon liturgy is different from the GM; the scriptures are different (restricted to “Prabhupada’s books”), etc. Furthermore, Iskcon does not consider itself to be a part of the GM “intermediate” institutional entente. Thus, in a sense, Narayan Maharaj is playing the game Iskcon itself started. Prabhupada seems to have softened this stand toward the end of his life, permitting disciples to go to Sridhar and Narayan Maharajas, and thus leaving another layer of ambiguity in Iskcon and another possibility for confusion and institutional weakening .

 

Thus if the above commandments apply within the GM family, does it also apply between GM and Iskcon? If sampradayas are different, then “poaching” is permitted. Is Iskcon a different sampradaya from GM? I think there is a general division of opinion on this matter, but on the whole, the answer would be yes. Those who think they are the same sampradaya are likely no longer in Iskcon.

 

Your situation appears to be unique, in that you can claim to be a genuine member of the GM family. Thus, your legitimacy should not be in question. However, it is being undermined apparently because you are not a born Hindu and whatever that entails. Thus, you are not “under attack” because you are a part of the Iskcon institution, but because you are a Westerner and thus your claims to spiritual stature are suspect. It is your decision whether you want to follow commandment number 2 where others are not following commandment number 1. My personal feeling is that you should, as a matter of trust in your disciples. But you should make the conditions clear to your disciples: There is only one mantra guru, as Jiva says.

 

[Jagat 1]

Excuse me Gauracandra, if I have not had time to directly answer your question, but I think you will find there is relevance in what I did post.

 

Jagat

[Gauracandra 1]

I think your analysis of the situation Jagat is quite accurate. And it certainly has important implications to this thread.

 

I've mentioned that I've tried to research various religions to see how they handle such situations. One thing I am still trying to find is a good book or resource that describes the Jewish religious structure. I've asked a friend at work who is orthodox Hassidic Jew to describe how it works, but to be honest I still don't get how it all works. It seems to be a loose configuration, but with a certain orthodox structure so that there is standardization but still a loose configuration. I haven't figured out how it works. I've asked others and they say there is no head of Judaism, while some people say there are heads (like big gurus that certain sects follow). If anyone has a good resource on Judaism I'd be really interested. It might be a model we could use in Krsna Consciousness (something that maintained high standards to prevent deviation, but also allow a loose configuration).

[Gauracandra 1]

Not to get into any politics, but I thought it would be good to mention that there are a number of people who aren't initiated in Iskcon who are allowed service within the institution itself. I know of two people (in two different temples) who are disciples of Srila Bhakti Pramode Puri Maharaj who perform pujari work, and another person who is a disciple of Srila Govinda Maharaj who does service as well.

[suryaz 0]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

Not to get into any politics, but I thought it would be good to mention that there are a number of people who aren't initiated in Iskcon who are allowed service within the institution itself. I know of two people (in two different temples) who are disciples of Srila Bhakti Pramode Puri Maharaj who perform pujari work, and another person who is a disciple of Srila Govinda Maharaj who does service as well.

 

Yes, - truly Gauracandra.

 

I know of similar situations. However, of these the devotees concerned, have previously been initiated into ISKCON, have good relationships with local ISKCON management and are required to keep the non-ISKCON initiation quite (although most others are aware of the non- ISKCON initiation). There are always some people who can move easily among the different groups.

 

This is however, seldom the norm.

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by suryaz (edited 04-04-2002).]

[Gauracandra 1]

The individuals I know of don't keep it a secret, but they aren't out there proselytizing either. They are people who have been devotees for years but never got initiated. They show their loyalty to the community through actual service, not words. Family means commitments. Community means commitments. These individuals have all practically commited themselves to their temples, and as such are part of the family. It doesn't matter that they weren't initiated in Iskcon. So long as relationships of trust are built and commitments are fulfilled, I think everyone is welcomed.