Mayapur Temple: New Design vs. Old Design

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

At this years GBC meetings a new model for the "big temple" in Mayapur was released, one that would be around 1/10th the size of the old concept, and would be built in the present park area (near where the elephants used to stay). Below are pictures of the previous design and the present (new) design. Please vote for which one you prefer:

 

Old Design

 

 

 

New Design

 

[brajeshwara das]

The old design is presented much more lavishly, so this doesn't seem fair.

[Guest guest]

JNDas,

 

Have they officially decided not to build that big temple

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Yes, as far as I understand, they have no plans to build the big temple any more. Officially they just call the new design as the "big temple", but as you can see it isn't so big. The advantage they cite is that the new design can be completed in six years, so everyone will see it before they die, whereas the old temple needed 50+ years to complete.

 

They spent $10 million dollars researching the plans for the big temple, and now they are not building it. In comparison, the ISKCON Bangalore temple cost $10 million to build, including its multimedia theatre, landscaping (8 acres of land), restaurants, etc.

[Guest guest]

 

Yes, as far as I understand, they have no plans to build the big temple any more. Officially they just call the new design as the "big temple", but as you can see it isn't so big. The advantage they cite is that the new design can be completed in six years, so everyone will see it before they die, whereas the old temple needed 50+ years to complete.

 

They spent $10 million dollars researching the plans for the big temple, and now they are not building it. In comparison, the ISKCON Bangalore temple cost $10 million to build, including its multimedia theatre, landscaping (8 acres of land), restaurants, etc.

 

The Sankirtan mission worldheadquarter in the Holy Dham of Sri Mayapur is something like representing the success of Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu's global Sankirtan Mission, as managed by present ISKCON.

If we examine more thoroughly how present ISKCON leadership is managing the European and American yatras we find so many temples being closed, big temples being changed into small namahatta centers, temples only opening for the Sundayfeast, temples run by paid staff because of lack of devotees. Thousands devotees driven out of ISKCON who took shelter at Narayana Swami's mission and other mathas.

In sum, such a big temple in Mayapur does not fit to ISKCON's present achievements in global preaching work - neither the old nor the new design. They should rather first focus and do their schoolwork in properly setting up a successful, dynamicaly increasing world sankirtan movement until all the experts come forward to build that temple not that the ISKCON preachers are doing that, which is in direct conflict with sastra:

 

NoD 7: Evidence Regarding Devotional Principles Chapter 12:

 

[...]So a bona fide spiritual master should not personally take any responsibility for constructing temples, but if someone has money and wants to spend it in the service of Kṛṣṇa, an ācārya like Rūpa Gosvāmī may utilize the devotee's money to construct a nice, costly temple for the service of the Lord. Unfortunately, it happens that someone who is not fit to become a spiritual master may approach wealthy persons to contribute for temple constructions. If such money is utilized by unqualified spiritual masters for living comfortably in costly temples without actually doing any preaching work, this is not acceptable. In other words, a spiritual master needn't be very enthusiastic for constructing temple buildings simply in the name of so-called spiritual advancement. Rather, his first and foremost activity should be to preach. In this connection, Śrīla Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī Gosvāmī Mahārāja recommended that a spiritual master print books. If one has money, instead of constructing costly temples, one should spend his money for the publication of authorized books in different languages for propagating the Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement.

[Guest guest]

 

Thousands devotees driven out of ISKCON who took shelter at Narayana Swami's mission and other mathas.

 

Your first point about devotees going to narayana Maharaja. Can one go back to Godhead only through ISKCON? If not, why the concern with devotees going to Srila Narayana Maharaja? Devotees will go to that person that they think can deliver them from bondage of this material world. It's not something we can take lightly. Good for those that sought his shelter. They're in safe hands.

 

 

They should rather first focus and do their schoolwork in properly setting up a successful, dynamicaly increasing world sankirtan movement until all the experts come forward to build that temple not that the ISKCON preachers are doing that, which is in direct conflict with sastra:

 

Does one have to be part of a society to preach? If not, is there something we can do rather than just point out what <I>they</I> should be doing?

[suchandra]

 

Your first point about devotees going to narayana Maharaja. Can one go back to Godhead only through ISKCON? If not, why the concern with devotees going to Srila Narayana Maharaja? Devotees will go to that person that they think can deliver them from bondage of this material world. It's not something we can take lightly. Good for those that sought his shelter. They're in safe hands.

Does one have to be part of a society to preach? If not, is there something we can do rather than just point out what they should be doing?

 

ISKCON claims to offer everything what is required to make your live fully perfect and go back home back to Godhead. If people leave ISKCON like described at the Biblical account in Exodus, 1500 BC, when thousands of Hebrews left Egypt for good, why then should ISKCON build such a gigantic representing emblem to demonstrate successful global preaching?

This doesnt have anything to do if Narayana Swami is bona fide or not.

 

Does one have to be part of a society to preach? If not, is there something we can do rather than just point out what they should be doing?

This is of course a good question, how to preach without being part of a society and stop wasting time and energy by pointing fingers to others?

May be for this reason Krishna gave us the internet.

[sanatan]

Objective and mostly non-political view: New design obviously easier to realize; it's nicely proportioned and reasonably simple but could still use some cleaning up; more sensible and humble; appropriate in light of the direction ISKCON is hopefully headed.

[Guest guest]

I can't believe the temple that we talked so much about and was supposed to be the biggest ISKCON project ever is now not going to happen. Remember Harikesa collecting all those millions back in the 90s for the Mayapur Temple? All those brahmacaris breaking their backs out on the streets? Well, at least some books went out, but that's about it.

 

I think this is somewhat appropriate though, considering that ISKCON itself seems to be turning into a scaled-down version of Prabhupada's original grand vision. Compromises are made, and day by day ISKCON is turning into another mundane religion, with perhaps some bright spots. It may be more humble and fitting for us to make a smaller temple, but that's not what Prabhupada wanted. He was a big thinker. We keep scaling down his vision to make it more manageable for us.

 

But at the same time, can you really blame them? The big temple was going to be a monstrous undertaking. Sometimes when plans are too grandiose, they just never come to fruition. I think in life it is sometimes better to do what you can, if you can't reach the ideal. It's like in Gita where Krishna says, if you can't do this, do this, and if you can't do that, do this... and so on. Hare Krishna.

[brajeshwara das]

 

I can't believe the temple that we talked so much about and was supposed to be the biggest ISKCON project ever is now not going to happen. Remember Harikesa collecting all those millions back in the 90s for the Mayapur Temple? All those brahmacaris breaking their backs out on the streets? Well, at least some books went out, but that's about it.

 

I think this is somewhat appropriate though, considering that ISKCON itself seems to be turning into a scaled-down version of Prabhupada's original grand vision. Compromises are made, and day by day ISKCON is turning into another mundane religion, with perhaps some bright spots. It may be more humble and fitting for us to make a smaller temple, but that's not what Prabhupada wanted. He was a big thinker. We keep scaling down his vision to make it more manageable for us.

 

But at the same time, can you really blame them? The big temple was going to be a monstrous undertaking. Sometimes when plans are too grandiose, they just never come to fruition. I think in life it is sometimes better to do what you can, if you can't reach the ideal. It's like in Gita where Krishna says, if you can't do this, do this, and if you can't do that, do this... and so on. Hare Krishna.

 

It seems to me that book distribution is more fundamentally important to the preading of bhakti than temple building, and the seva the bramacharis did was its own reward. The fruits belong to Krishna. If Krishna wanted a big temple, wouldn't Krishna would have arranged that?

[theist]

Big Temple beautiful.

 

New Temple tacky looking.

 

Why not a scaled down version of the big temple if they must make it smaller.