Keys To Successful Religions

[Gauracandra]

I thought I'd start this thread as a brainstorming session. The goal is not to gripe about problems, but rather to consider in broad terms what points are necessary for a religion to succeed. Philosophically, Structurally, Historically, what is needed for a religion to succeed, and how can we apply those points to assist in establishing Krsna Consciousness for the future. I'll add some of my views in a bit.

 

Gauracandra

[Avinash]

The rules and regulations prescribed in a religion should not be so hard that the moment you break any of them, you are boycotted from that religion because the rules may be feasible at one time but not at all times.

[abhi_the_great]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

I thought I'd start this thread as a brainstorming session. The goal is not to gripe about problems, but rather to consider in broad terms what points are necessary for a religion to succeed. Philosophically, Structurally, Historically, what is needed for a religion to succeed, and how can we apply those points to assist in establishing Krsna Consciousness for the future. I'll add some of my views in a bit.

 

Gauracandra

 

Hmmm... interseting question here.

 

As an outsider, a religion wd be meaningful, if he is able to fulfill his social, religious(maybe mundane), philosophical and intellectual needs. If he is appreciated for his ideas and receives constant motivation, he can never leave such a religion/organisation. A place wrought with politics and back stabbing is the last place where anyone wd like to belong. This is a micro level analysis.

 

On a higher level what strengthens a religion is mostly its legendary leaders like Srila Prabhupad for ISKCON, Lee Kuan Yew for Singapore etc. and the rules by which the society is governed. The values which it ingrains and the way it projects itself in the world. I feel a cultish image is detrimental for a religious society.

 

Like Gandhiji in India, Lee Kuan Yew is a leader who has seen a country wrought by colonial rule, captured by Japanese in WW2 and corrupted by communists to an independent country. Actually he has gone one or two steps ahead of Gandhiji by seeing Singapore into a financially successful and one of the most secure countries of the world. And these are his USPs - the most secure country, both in terms of crime rate and in terms of financial stability, state of the art infrastructural facilities and liberal banking norms to attract more investors from around the world and always improvising.

 

Presently I am going thru the biography of this living legend, it has made quite an interesting read for me. "Lee Kuan Yew, the man and his ideas". He is indeed a genius who has build high skylines on what was a barren island - home of bandits and communists and politically a most unstable society.

 

So much to learn from the world....will continue.

 

Abhi

[gHari]

Of course, as a minimum a religion must adhere to the laws already established by Krsna in the form of karma. Therefore it must promote sattvik life. It must lead to love of God.

 

Breaking the rules: karma will take care of administering the punishments here.

 

I guess I'm not saying much, except perhaps realizing at last that a religion is only a socialization of the fundamental sanatana dharma implemented by Krsna which cannot be altered. Or, I hate to say it, but perhaps it is a watering down or colouring of Krsna's established sanatana dharma. That is a very sobering thought.

 

I would change this: instead of people having a life and then coming to the temple, they should have a temple and then add a life. Community, family and career would not be their center, but rather their temple activity would be their main identification. It would not make for a rich in bricks church, but a very strong in the heart church.

 

GBC

(Gary Builds a Church)

[gHari]

I think we are about to discover just how brilliant Srila Prabhupada was, as we try to create our Vaishnava of Latter Day Saints Church.

 

And what the hell; I am a zealot who has seen visions. Ain't it practically expected of such a madman?

[gHari]

I reread what we have written and realized that the next extension would be, in a word, varnasrama. Now I am starting to see just how brilliant Sri Krsna is. His divine plan is so logical. I think we would do well to steal His ideas as much as possible.<font color="#f7f7f7">

 

[This message has been edited by gHari (edited 03-04-2002).]

[Gauracandra]

To me one of the keys to a successful religion is establishing a unique identity - or what I call "peoplehood". Small religions are easily dispersed, and so it is important to establish certain unifying ideas so that the religion can attain "critical mass" (another stage that I feel is important). To be a people means to have certain common values, common approaches to life, a connection to the past and a vision of a shared destiny as a people. As I mentioned in the other thread, one key problem is that we emerged at a point when communication and transportation allowed completely different peoples to come together. Thus our diversity makes it more difficult (I think) to establish a coherent sense of peoplehood. We have a thousand different people, with a thousand different ideas, values, approaches, backgrounds, that are losely connected to one another. If anyone has an idea of how to unite such a disparate band into a "people" that would be a major step in creating a successful religion.

[gHari]

How 'bout uniting with fashion: same clothes, same necklaces, same haircuts?

[Gauracandra]

To some degree I think Ghari is making a joke about uniting based on fashion But there is some truth to it. It is not that fashion will create a people, but rather that a people will naturally have a fashion consistent with their values.

 

If your values as a people tell you that a temple is a sacred place, and that chastity and wholesomeness are important, then you will see such people approach worship services in a certain manner. Likely they will wear very chaste clothes. The clothing will be clean, neat, and modest (their so called "Sunday best"). You will approach the temple in a certain mood, and this mood will be complimented by others in a similar mood. On the other hand, if you have no sense of peoplehood, of common values, of an idea of what a temple is, and how to approach a temple as a sacred place, then you will have no consistent mood for worship. Thus fashion, in a relative sense, could be seen as a byproduct of being a people or not being a people.

 

This is a very difficult question to answer in terms of how to unite a community with a common identity. I think it is important, though I must admit I don't have an answer to the problem. I raised the point of getting to a "critical mass" and I think that might help establish this identity in a very organic manner. The place I've seen that has the best chance at this would be Alachua, Florida which has a very large devotee community.

 

Again, due to modern transportation, I think we emerged very quickly in many places around the world. But what happened because of this was that we had 200 devotees here, 50 there, 97 over there etc.... So we were very dispersed around the world. We were in many places, but without much density. Thus I think there was a lack of social integration. Think of it like a piece of cloth (the social fabric). You can have a 20 foot piece of cloth, where each thread has half an inch between the next, or you can have a tightly woven piece of cloth that is 1 foot big. The 20 foot piece of cloth is much bigger, but is very week. It will rip easily and fall apart. The 1 foot piece of cloth is tightly woven, and strong.

 

Over time, with intermarriage, and community development, it is possible some form of identity will emerge, that will help define us as a people, and give us a foundation on which to move forward towards a common destiny. Thats my hope anyways.

[abhi_the_great]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

To some degree I think Ghari is making a joke about uniting based on fashion But there is some truth to it. It is not that fashion will create a people, but rather that a people will naturally have a fashion consistent with their values.

 

Dear Gauracandra,

 

Practically speaking its not possible to do such a thing as give a single identity or in the sense all people think and live alike. In some ways ISKCON has a standard set of rules and living practices and values which everyone around the world follows. If we force them to be more tight, they might break off.

 

If we are concentrating on a specific geographic area we can create more binding if the group consistently follows one single leader or one single Guru, maybe by stressing the fact that we are actually belonging to the family of Srila Prabhupad.

 

If we take the case of Christianity we can see that it has been able to mingle into the local cultures to an extend and take a few things of that culture. This increases the acceptability of a religion. We need to see how ISKCON has adapted to the different cultures of the world, and not tried to separate by force its followers. This is a way it can help increase the adaptability of a religion.

 

If ISKCON was a religion for only brahmacaris and sannyasis, it wd have become a great failure by today.

 

I think the best way to bind wd be by having a common philosophy and value set. The binding shd not be too heavy or too loose.

 

abhi

[Gauracandra]

I would argue that Iskcon members do not have a common set of values beyond a most general sense, but have some degree of common philosophy (though emphasis changes based on one's guru). The values certainly have some semblance of commanality, but mostly everyone's values and perceptions of the world are based on their upbringing. Then they take those values which are entirely different and run them through the generalized values of Iskcon (4 regulative principles in particular).

 

The rules and regulations prescribed in a religion should not be so hard that the moment you break any of them, you are boycotted from that religion because the rules may be feasible at one time but not at all times.

This is an interesting point. Here is another thing to consider: to what degree does the philosophy itself dictate the success or failure of the religion. Ideas matter. And the philosophical ideas of various religions will shape the nature of the practitioner, and the ability of a religion to replicate itself into the future.

 

Consider for instance the Shakers. This was a New England group of Christians from the 1700s. It was founded by a woman named Ann Lee who believed she was the female component to Jesus Christ (Goddess Mother). The group was very successful initially, but had one interesting doctrinal component. It seems that Ann Lee had been pregnant at one point, but had lost her child due to miscarriage. This was such a shock to her that she incorporated into her sect that no one was to have sex or children. The group survived for a few hundred years, but slowly dwindled and went extinct. So in this case the philosophy against having children prevented the religion from being able to replicate itself into the future.

 

What is interesting about Western religious philosophy is its departure from notions of cycles to linear time. You start at the beginning and progress forward in a linear fashion. In addition, the western tradition focused much of its attention on man, the world, and shaping the two. This I think was a key component to the success of Christianity. In Christianity, man is part of the world. He manipulates matter and organizes it. In addition, I’ve spoken recently about Mormon notions. They believe they are gods who are meant to organize matter to create their own kingdoms. These philosophical notions do something to the practitioner and how he approaches the world of matter. It is my opinion that this is a key reason that Mormons are the richest religion in the U.S. per capita.

 

Compare this to the Eastern religious traditions. If you have a religion that says be apart of the world, manipulate matter, perfect your environment is it any wonder that such religions are successful in the world of matter? Now, if you have a religion that abhors matter, says avoid the world, do not accumulate wealth, renounce everything, this philosophy too will have an impact on how one approaches the world. Such religions are more likely to be poor, since the ideal is an avoidance of matter, a renunciation of the world. Can you be successful in the world, a world that you renounce?

 

So ideas will shape the religious practitioner, as well as attract certain kinds of people to those religions. This in turn will determine how the person perceives the world, and operates within. Some religious notions will cause the practitioner to excel in the world, bringing riches to themselves and their church. Other ideas may cause a person to be less ambitious materially, and this in turn will affect the ability of the religion to replicate itself into the future. Its something to think about: to what degree does philosophy affect the ability of a religion to succeed or fail.

[gHari]

But do not forget the real goal. Devising philosophy to attract more people or attain more fame and fortune over a longer stretch will not necessarily lead to krsna-tattva efficiently. Adding Siva puja may increase general wealth, but may detract from the fast track to Goloka.

 

But as you say, we can't let Caitanya's message be lost either. Perhaps a watering-down is needed; likely that is naturally produced by the varnasrama culture where a gradation of austerity is expected from the congregation.

[Sarasvati]

I think we all know that only God can create a religion. Shouldn't we start from that?

[abhi_the_great]

Originally posted by Sarasvati:

I think we all know that only God can create a religion. Shouldn't we start from that?

Sure, God has created religion, but we have a responsibility to present it in an acceptable and appealing way.

 

As far as manipulating matter, it does not contradict Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's message. Where is it said that a rich person cannot become KC? Such propaganda is not very healthy, and is an immature conclusion. Rich or poor, male or female all are fit for the mercy of Chaithanya. If a devotee feels that he shd not try to become rich, either he is a hypocrite or he is not given a mature understanding of philosophy. All the wealth belongs to Krishna and his devotees - so that it can be properly utilised. A person with vaishya tendencies needs to be inspired to make more and more money. This is the the essence of yukta vairagya. Even as a sudra one shd work hard in the office to get a highere and higher promotion and to come to the helm of the company management. This is ofcourse according to ones capacity. But this is absolutely in line with our philososphy.

 

Lord Chaithanya's teachings are absolutely positive in nature, we see it in a negative light bcos we are not able to assimilate it with the help of mature devotees.

 

Abhi

[Gauracandra]

I don’t think we need to water down the philosophy in order to be successful. I think if we understand what variables lead to success, we can search within our own tradition for those points and highlight them. For instance, the easiest and surest way for a tradition to grow in by internal growth (having children). But to be honest, I don’t think I have EVER heard a lecture about how to raise successful families. Why not? Is it that our tradition has nothing to say about this? I don’t believe so. But we tend to focus on reincarnation, karma, or some other esoteric points. This may be all well and good, but I also think there are many people who are thinking “Give me something I can use”. What are some practical steps I can use to incorporate Krsna Consciousness into my every day life?

 

I agree with Abhi (The Great) that Mahaprabhu’s movement is completely positive. If someone wants to be rich we should encourage it. If we simply preach renunciation then we are missing a chance to have relevance in the lives of 99% of devotees. Most devotees are not qualified to be true renunciates. But if someone wants to climb that corporate ladder, make lots of money, etc… but then in his community he is told “This is all maya. You should just renounce. When you die you can’t take the money with you, so why are you even trying…” then how will we ever build up a real economic base? So I think we need to search within our tradition, for examples to motivate people to achieve their highest potential. Highlight these virtues to encourage all devotees to excel and be the best.

[gHari]

This approach seems to have enjoyed a certain degree of success in the past: rob and kill everyone who will not join your church.

[Sarasvati]

And how do we define "a succesful religion"? By the number of its followers? Then we could just take a leaf out of the Christian & Muslim books. Or by purity? By love to God & Goddess?

 

What is success? Let's define that first.

[Avinash]

And how do we define "a succesful religion"? By the number of its followers? Then we could just take a leaf out of the Christian & Muslim books. Or by purity? By love to God & Goddess?

 

Was goddess Saraswati in your mind?

[Gauracandra]

What would we consider a successful religion? I have read that Srila Prabhupada said that if he created one pure devotee then he would consider everything a success. So that is one measurement. Still, suppose today there were not a single devotee left. We have had a pure devotee such as Srila Gour Govinda Maharaj. But suppose that since his passing, EVERY devotee left, and the movement ended. I think while there would be individual success, as a “movement” it would be a failure. A movement is about ideas and making a cultural shift towards those ideas. If no one is left, then the movement has ended – it is no longer moving, it has failed to make its cultural shift. So while many might say purity is the only measure of a movement’s success, I don’t think this can be the only measurement. Certainly for an individual, but not for a movement. If in 1000 years there are only say net 50 devotees over the number today, would we consider this a success? My opinion is that if after 1000 years we have only increased the movement in net size by 50, that this would be evidence for major mismanagement. I would not consider such mismanagement a success. So while numbers can’t be the only measure of success, they certainly are an objective measure of the ability of a movement to make a cultural shift towards certain ideas.

[Gauracandra]

Another thing to consider is the nature of priestly duties. Iskcon is built on a monastic model, but to be honest I can not think of any current religion (last few hundred years) that has succeeded based on the monastic model. Of course there is Buddhism, and Catholicism etc... but mostly they were supported by the kings of the past. They grew big, and have been able to continue this process solely due to their large (current) size. But today it is becoming a crisis in the Catholic church that they can't attract people to become priests, monks, or nuns.

 

It seems that most religions that have developed recently have been congregational based. The priests are lay priests, the congregation does much of the work, rather than having full time priests. This might be a necessary change for us to consider. Such a shift would require greater community involvement, and training of congregation members in the performance of these duties.

 

One example that comes to mind is the Iskcon Houston temple. As I understand it, everyone works outside, and volunteers their service at the temple - including the temple president. This might be a good model to follow. I must say that Houston was the most professional temple I have ever visited. From top to bottom I found the quality of the environment, temple, worship services, prasadam, etc... to be exceptional. So such a system can work.

[abhi_the_great]

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

What would we consider a successful religion?

So while numbers can’t be the only measure of success, they certainly are an objective measure of the ability of a movement to make a cultural shift towards certain ideas.

Good directions Gaurachandra. Both are important, numbers and quality. Many people following a high standard of worship is the ideal. But in the beginning stages, we cannot expect all the people to be of highest callibre, so we need to encourage them in whatever fields they are expert in. Maturity and standard will steadily follow.

 

Hari bol

abhi

[Ananga]

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's religion succeeded largely as a re-interpretation of Hinduism and its rigid caste system. That branch of the study of History of Religions is called hermeneutics. The oft used phrase is according to time and circumstance. Mahaprabhu made bhakti accessible to the masses and took off the previously imposed strictures of caste and creed to make it universally appealing, non-exclusive and non-sectarian. Sectarian cults can be successful, but they do not have this feature, rather one of exclusivity and isolationism. In examining any branch on the Caitanya tree, one must assess it according to such criteria to see how it measures up to Mahaprabhu's original vision of a faith for the masses.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Ananga (edited 03-10-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by Ananga (edited 03-10-2002).]

[Gauracandra]

It is interesting that most new religions that take root and succeed are basically offshoots of existing religions. So Christianity is basically Judaism with the New Testament. Islam takes what is in the Old and New Testament, but then adds the Koran. Mormonism takes Christianity, but adds the Book of Mormon. When the old system no longer provides meaning because (perhaps) it has lost vitality and is simply ritualistic, then a new Prophet comes to reinterpret the tradition to give it new blood.

[Avinash]

A day comes when the new religion also becomes simply ritualistic.

[Gauracandra]

Another fundamental key to the success of a religion is developing a unique voice. It is important that a religion’s message be heard among the numerous other voices in the audience. If an organization speaks out of unison, without a common message, then its message becomes muddled. Without a clearly defined message (which by the way comes with being a clearly defined “people” as mentioned before), it is likely that a religion will simply fall to the background, muddled with all the other non-distinct muddled messages of other religions.

 

So how to create a unique voice? Well, first a strong organizational structure is important in this regard (more on this later). But primarily it is important that there be a clearly defined sense of values and philosophy. Second, it is important that EVERY aspect of the religion work to compliment those clearly defined sense of values. For instance, if we say we believe in simplicity as one of our core values, then simplicity must reign throughout the organization. What does this mean? Ask yourself, what would a temple for a simple person be like? If you walk into a temple, and everything is sparkling marble, gold, with chandeliers etc… and yet we are speaking of simplicity, then there is a disconnect between the message and the execution. A strong voice would have the philosophy and values intimately tied to every aspect of the religion. This may seem a minor point, but is in fact very important. Without it a certain cognitive dissonance occurs where in our message is not clearly heard, because what we see doesn’t match what we say. I’m not saying marble and gold is bad, but maybe simply we aren’t truly in our heart of hearts a simple people. Fine. Just say “We believe in the opulent worship of the Lord. This is our mood.” In such a case, what we say and what people see go hand in hand, and this makes a much stronger impression.

 

So first we need to define what our core values are. What is it we TRULY believe? If you had to list in 5 points what we believe at the core of our philosophy what would they be? Try defining it in 5 points. Next, from top to bottom, the entire organization must then be viewed through these 5 principle points. Everything must line up with these points so that a clearly defined message is presented: “THIS IS WHAT WE BELIEVE”. With such a clearly defined voice we will attract those who are naturally drawn to that mood of worship. Without a clearly defined voice they won’t be able to hear what we have to offer.