Big projects in bhakti Reasons concerns and suggestions The Monk s Podcast 168 with Shyamananda Prabhu

Podcast:

Summary podcast:

Hare Krishna, Shamanandru. Welcome to our podcast. Thank you for having me.
Yes, Rohit. Both of us have been travelling over the years. Of course, the pandemic stopped travelling.
But one of the things which I thought we have probably observed and analysed is that as devotees, we naturally want to do big things for Prabhupada and Krishna. And one way that comes out in the ambition to do big projects. So, maybe I thought today we could discuss about the pros and cons of the big project.
Or what are the challenges in them, what are the cautions that we have today, and what are the benefits, something like that broadly. Yes, I remember every time we would visit some place, we would have a discussion about either how well the things are going on there or how bad are the challenges. So, I would like to make some kind of a Samhita, that means a Achar Samhita.
I won’t be naming any project by name or any project promoter by name, because that’s not the point of our podcast here. I myself, I know my limitations. So, I’m not a big project fan, nor am I a critic, just for the sake of criticising.
So, what I suggest is, first of all, use utilities and the dream of a big project and how it can galvanise the community. Why Prabhupada, first of all, told things like, I always think big, or I dream big. And there are one or two quotations which devotees are very fond of.
And it is good, because if not for Prabhupada’s big project, dreams, and his practically, if I use the word, flogging devotees from behind, saying that, go get it, do something. We would not be here today. 50 years have gone and we would not be here today.
I’m convinced of that. Flogging devotee is quite a strong word, but I appreciate what you’re saying. Flogging is giving instructions.
Yeah, not the physical part, but always keeping on something. Do it, do it, do it. So, let’s put some time, considerable time, not just some time, into the pros of a big project plan.
Now, I’m talking of post-77, because that’s where our issue really lies. For something which Prabhupada wanted, got it, and told devotees to maintain, I would put Mumbai, Vrindavan, Mayapur, ToVP. So, there is no question that these things have to be done properly the way Prabhupada wanted.
So, do you like this thing? First, we’ll talk about the ways in which a big project is helpful. Yeah, I think that’s very important. Because when we recognise the need for something, the value of something, then we can look at what are the questions we address.
So, in principle, we appreciate the importance of big projects. It is just that we have to be careful about how they are done. Yes, true.
So, yeah, you want to start? Okay, I’ll begin. Okay, what are the pros in my mind? Well, first thing I would say is that they just attract attention. And in some ways, attention is, we have now come to an attention economy.
Exactly. That word is used in social media. But also applies to, also applies in general when people have to want to visit some place, when people want to go to some place.
If it’s noticeable only, then they will even know about it to come to it. And that’s what something distinct to something special, something grand. That’s what gets attention.
So, for getting, if you consider our purpose ultimately is to help people come to Krishna, then they need to know about Krishna. They need to know about the Krishna temple. And a grand structure, a physically grand structure is one foundational thing that can get attention.
So, I would say that is the first thing. Any thoughts on this? Agreed. That people generally look at today temple as kind of a spiritual resort, or if I can use a word, a spot for attraction.
Just like Karmis have their Disney worlds and other things, there people mainly go because it would be something for everybody, something for the whole family. And naturally, then there is hospitality. People become happy by the way they are received there.
And of course, all of this can be spiritualised or Krishna-ized. I’ll begin actually the thinking process regarding the positive thing, begins with a Brahmananda Prabhu quote. That one must speak of Swamiji going to Haight-Ashbury on the West Coast.
We thought that we are just going to be the second avenue boys. So, can you imagine people who actually have given their whole lives to serving Srila Prabhupada, were under the impression that this is it. Prabhupada comes here, 22nd Avenue, and this is where we’ll be, a small band of Swami’s flock.
And then Prabhupada gives the name International, and that’s the first culture shock. Why international? There is a question of we becoming international. Then Prabhupada going to the West Coast, Haight-Ashbury, and then saying London.
And then there are stories of Prabhupada pointing at the globe and saying, we have 11 Srila Prabhupada, and Prabhupada said, okay, very soon we’ll have all over the world. So, it was Prabhupada who understood the import of the word international. It almost seems as if Prabhupada knew what the author knows, what the next four chapters are.
And as soon as they kind of appear on screen, and others are also reading it, and author kind of nods, yes, the next chapter you’ll see something more. Oh, yeah, next, next, next. So, although I cannot call it a scripted kind of thing, history, Prabhupada had challenges and that we all know.
So, the big project thing, New York, there was no big project, at least in the early, late 60s, early 70s. London also devotees were staying in a, can you imagine, the road cables, power cables or other cables, they are transported in huge boxes, and these boxes are then kind of discarded. So, devotees were staying in one such box in the dreaded London weather, and so this was the beginning.
And then, of course, we have George Harrison giving us a ready-made big house, big for those times. And so that was not a constructed thing. So, in Europe, mostly we didn’t construct anything.
There was a German castle, the Schloss Ritterhof, and France also, we purchased the chateau. So, nothing much in Europe. Similarly, nothing much in America.
It’s only in India where almost in quick succession, the Saraf land for Krishna Balram temple, the Mayapur land from a family of farmers, and the Juhu land from this famous or infamous newspaper owner and kind of a city industrialist. So, these projects, along with Hyderabad, this is a historical development of the big project scenario. And you find Prabhupada’s quotes on bigger the better, I want it.
So, Bombay was a big struggle. Krishna Balram temple also was a struggle, although not on the scale of Mumbai. And Mayapur, Prabhupada calling it the world headquarters and having big, big plans.
So, this is a big sweeping look at 65 to 77. And there you are, Prabhupada’s quotes. So, like how we can do big preaching and Prabhupada encouraged, go Shava projects, feed in Brahmanas, Itha donation, construction rooms, guest houses, everything.
And so, these quotes are bigger is better, dream big. And of course, there is something, not that Prabhupada said this, but this is very famous in the outside world. Not failure, but low ambition is crying.
So, we have a whole band of devotees who kind of feel that this is the only way to make a dent, to make preaching look big or actually make an effect. And now I change gears after having said these things in support. You want to add anything before I go to the reverse gear? Just a few points.
It’s interesting that Prabhupada in America also, there were some ambitious projects. New Vrindavan was a very ambitious project. In one letter Prabhupada told, I agree with Prabhu that he sent a report that I have purchased, we have purchased some more land.
In this way, you can purchase more and more land and one day you can purchase the whole West Virginia. So, Prabhupada was ambitious that way. And there are other projects also, which were.
So, broadly speaking, we could say there are city temples and there are farm projects, farm communities. These are the two main areas in which Prabhupada, we could say, requested, Prabhupada’s project that required significant investment of Lakshmi. Books were also like big and under Prabhupada’s inspiration, lots of books were distributed.
But that is that book production does not require that level of investment of Lakshmi. So, in that sense, get the books, distribute them, get more books, distribute them, print more books like that. So, it’s relatively, you can do it in a big scale, but it does not require big accumulation of Lakshmi from the beginning itself.
So, I would say that farm projects and temples, these are two main categories of big projects, especially if you use big in terms of that which is requiring big investment of Lakshmi. Huge financial requirements are there right from the beginning. Now, of course, bigness can also be defined in terms of how many people are required to run the project.
And so, if we take that, then Gurukul would require a lot of people to run the projects. Of course, farms will require a significant number of people. And then book distribution requires a number of people.
But it’s as I said that it’s slightly different. Can be ambitious, but I don’t think book distribution itself, we are discussing that as a big project. Is that right overall? Yes, yes, yes.
Okay. So, then another point I was thinking is just a broader historical context. It seems that during pre-independence times, Indians didn’t build many temples.
Maybe the British had certain laws or Indians were not wealthy enough or whatever. But it does seem that from the 1960s onwards, you could say Hindus started building big temples. And even in them, if I’m not mistaken, Prabhupada was a visionary, Prabhupada was a pioneer.
So, there are other temples, of course, there is the Birla temple, there are Swaminarayan temples. But from what I understand, Swaminarayan big temple started coming a little later. So, this is not a comparison for criticism purposes or just contextualisation.
It does seem that building big temples was seen also as a matter of national pride. And there was that urge to show the great, to showcase the greatness of our heritage. If we go back slightly, there was when Prabhupada was in the early 1990s, in 1966, there was Padampad Singhania who was ready to sponsor building a temple in America.
But he wanted a standard temple with architecture. Prabhupada said, let’s know that much Lakshmi, that much money the Indian forex, Indian government will not allow outside. So, let’s start with something small right now, which can help in the outreach.
And then eventually we can build something bigger. But he said, no, if we’re going to have a temple, we have to have proper standard traditional architecture. So, his idea was that he would get his relatives and others and show this is the temple I have built.
So, that sense of wanting to have some major visible architecture as an expression of one’s religious identity and national identity, that seems to be a post-independence phenomena, but not immediately post-independence also, 2-3 decades later. I read somewhere that in the last 50 years, I’ll have to confirm the exact statistics. But in the last 50 years, Hindus have constructed more temples than in the last 200-300 years or so.
So, that’s also understandable. There are not that many, we could say, Hindu, Vedic kings who could sponsor. So, in the British rule, also this is difficult.
So, that could be, but this seems to be a broader cultural trend to have significant temples. And so, that’s just a broader contextualisation. Okay.
So, as I said, I’m going into a little bit reverse gear. So, here we have the term devotion, then right now I have in front of me something from Journey of Self-Discipline. Before we go into reverse gear, let me also talk to three other points of why big temples are important.
One more I would say is just expression of devotion for Krishna, that Krishna deserves the best place, Krishna deserves the biggest place. So, at least from what I understood from the tradition, in many places kings would have grand palaces. And sometimes the kings, the temples would be bigger than the king’s palaces, not always, but on some occasions.
So, the idea that a king should have, that the lord should have a big temple can also be an expression of one’s devotion. So, it’s not just for attracting the people, it’s also for expressing our devotion. Prabhupada defines Krishna consciousness in one place as desiring the best for Krishna.
So, that means desiring the best structure, physical structure, infrastructure, desiring the best temple for Krishna. So, it could be not just outreach, but it also could be an expression of our devotion to Krishna. And then one more thing, if I may talk about this, is that if you see Prabhupada felt that, especially in Mayapur and Vrindavan, he envisioned temples not just as grand structures for the deities, but also places where people could come and stay and experience Krishna in the temple atmosphere.
Prabhupada famously said in Mayapur that we ourselves can stay in a small hut, but people won’t come here. That is why people need a certain level of comfort. And that’s why we are having this construction and building all these big buildings.
So, in that sense, it’s also for people to have a comfortable experience of Krishna. So, it’s not just the grand structure of the temple, but then guest houses and associated facilities which come with that. So, that also comes into the picture.
So, these are two more things which I felt are the reasons why big projects are there. Now, somewhat, not necessarily unhealthy, but you could say more internal reason would be that there was always spiritual competition among devotees and Prabhupada also encouraged that, especially in terms of book distribution. How many are distributed? Who distributes more? I will come to their temple and stay there.
So, devotees also imbibed that spirit with regards to temple construction. This is post Prabhupada, not during Prabhupada’s times, that we would like to have a grander temple. So, sometimes it’s crores are talked about as if they are thousands.
Now, we have a 10 crore temple, we have 20 crore temple, we have 40 crore temple, we have a 50 crore temple. So, it is grand and it is also, not saying in negative sense, but could also be part of a spiritual competition among devotees who want to offer the grandest place for Krishna and Prabhupada within the context of ISKCON. That could also be a spur, which could be constructive, which could be not so constructive.
Since you said, Prabhupada said that we are not exactly condoning it. You are not saying it is good, it should be continued. Because right now we are also having that angle.
Should we continue that mood today? Yeah, definitely. So, that’s why I’m saying that, that is more of an internal factor. And we’ll discuss whether it should be continued or not.
But these are some reasons why book projects did take off. And every project started aiming for big, big things, almost every project. And some of them have been very successful also.
And since it is Prabhupada’s example, Prabhupada’s quotes also were taken quite often. So, we have Prabhupada’s quotes supporting the idea of book projects, a scriptural quote. Now, we can look at maybe both from a scriptural perspective.
What is the hesitation about that? And from a practical exploration perspective, maybe, what are the challenges in that? Or what are the unexpected or unwanted effects that might result because of taking projects beyond one’s capacity? Okay. So, the first thing I have is Journey of Self-Discovery, Chapter 3. Prabhupada’s, maybe it’s a class or some transcription. The pleasure principle is the third category.
And the third chapter in that, Krishna, enchanter of the soul. Prabhupada says, that is our main purpose. To give, what does he say? Our purpose is not to construct big, big buildings.
Although that is sometimes required for spreading Krishna consciousness and for giving shelter to people. But our main business is to turn the faces of the bewildered, conditioned souls toward Krishna. That’s our main purpose.
Therefore, Bhaktivinoda Thakura and other Vaishnavas have warned us to be careful about constructing too many big temples. Because our attention may be diverted toward material things. In other words, we may become forgetful of Krishna.
So, the warning is there. Even while doing that, Prabhupada said, yes, the danger is there. So, one senior Prabhupada disciple, still actively serving Prabhupada’s mission in India.
I have heard from him two or three times that all these quotes about India. Now, again, we are talking of just about the geographical land of India. And the big temples here.
He said, Prabhupada never encouraged any more big temples after these. Vrindavan, Mayapur, Bombay, Hyderabad. Hyderabad was not a big project.
These are the four projects started by Prabhupada. So, if you take the quotes from say 69, 70 to 74, 75. So, they may look like a universal application of philosophy.
But they are more restricted towards Indian projects only. And many other places, Prabhupada maintained kind of a mobility factor that, you know, just take something on rent, see whatever is available, start something. And this is where if somebody wants, when they can make a objective research, like, okay, why are you building a big temple, say in Europe somewhere? Let’s say Rome, there is no such project.
So, I can safely use that example. Let’s say somebody has a $25 million project in Rome. So, now we can’t use a 71 quote, which was applicable to something specific in India.
And say that big temple means big preaching. Big temple means grand service for Krishna. I’m afraid those may not apply.
They may not work. I’ll begin with this one thing. Like, although the quotation of Prabhupada is there, and although the prospect of big time preaching is there, at least in 2021, today’s reality, those things may not hold water.
What do you say about that? Yes, very true. So, it’s almost like making big temples is relatively far easier than maintaining big temples. Of course, making the temple is also tough.
It’s not easy. It’s quite tough. But even if we succeed, it’s not the end.
It’s just the opening of bigger challenges. So, now India, Krishna Consciousness in India and Krishna Consciousness in the rest of the world, there are significant differences. In India, big temples are even now sustainable.
We can talk about challenges in India also a little later. But at least it’s sustainable because outreach is going on well. People are taking up bhakti in significant numbers.
And therefore, there are people who will take up seva. So, if we have big temples, big temples don’t make sense without big deities or many deities. And many deities means we need many pujaris.
We need a lot of people who can do that with seva. So, do we have that? So, in India, at least it might be possible to some extent. But we consider while our movement in the post Prabhupada phase has grown in India, it has shrunk significantly in the rest of the world for various reasons.
And that has created a crisis. So, one of my, one of the most jolting points I heard from one of the preachers in America, he told me that in some of the temples, in one of the temples, he said that when in the morning programme, there are more deities than devotees. I’ve heard it.
So, what it means is that even if the deities are there, even devotees are there, they have to just do all the Mangala Aarti singing, the deity worship. And so many things need to be done and it’s not easy. So, things may change.
And the future, if we have created, so it’s not just right now, how much pressure will come in trying to build a project, that’s an important question. But after that, once the project is constructed, things change. And we can’t really live in fear of the future.
But we can’t be blind to the challenges of the future also. So, when there are not enough devotees, then taking and then serving the deities and maintaining the temple itself becomes such a consuming activity that there is very little time or very little resources available, people available for doing the, for doing outreach. So, in one sense, while the temple is for the glorification of the Lord, and that itself is perfection.
But in another sense, ours is a mission of compassion where we want to reach out to people. So, there are many traditional temples in India. Some of them in good condition, some of them in not so good condition.
But there’s some worship happens over there, but hardly anyone goes there. And even if somebody goes there, they just, it’s a silent place. They sit, pray and go back.
Unless somebody is interested in giving donations, the priest doesn’t have the time or the interest or even the inclination to talk with them. So, there is no sharing of philosophy, there is no outreach, there is no guiding visitors further on their journey toward Krishna. And to some extent, that’s what started happening in our temples also.
I have had friends who have had experiences that when they go to a temple, the first thing that people ask them is, the first thing they have been asked is, that please give some donations. And few things put people off as much as that. And now it’s not that the devotees were asking them for donations.
They are selfish. They’re not necessarily using, they’re not using that Lakshmi for themselves. But that’s so much in their minds.
We have this grand temple and how are we going to maintain it? So, then in one sense, if people come, instead of being welcomed and instead of people feeling that I benefited by going to a temple, I learned something, I connect with a nice person. If people feel I’m going there, I want to be asked money. Then even then we start alienating people and the temple may start having and unwittingly end up having the effect opposite to what it was intended.
So, by attracting new people, it may start, unfortunately, not attracting or even alienating people. Yeah, there’s this point that somebody comes to the temple and then the only thing they see is various schemes for donations, various schemes for helping out something and pleas and pledges and the whole atmosphere is revolving around what you can do. Certainly, people need to be told, they can be informed.
But there’s a difference between getting informed and getting practically enveloped by either people or schemes or whatever. So, yeah, I just made a small kind of observation. This is one thing coming from a close friend who’s an Indian-bodied manager but is managing a temple in the first world.
So, again, these are not waterproof kind of observations. There could be always exceptions. He says in India, people would rather give to something to begin with like a goshala in your mother’s name, in your departed father’s name or something like that.
So, like I’ve seen people giving for maintenance also. But he said that people are likely to give if you start something. While in the West, again, I’m putting this for observation and scrutiny, the idea is show something and then I will come up with something.
So, if you say that, okay, we are doing like the Bhakti Centre, a small home library. So, there are libraries in various spots around Manhattan. You sponsor some books.
These books are kept there and anybody can just, any passerby can take a book if they like, they can carry the book with them. So, it’s like 10-15 dollars will buy something like 20 small books or 25 small books. So, the programme is on, then the programme is advertised and then people come up and say, okay.
But if you say, can you give us a thousand dollars to set it up? Well, there is some reservation in that. So, this is why this observation was made that if you start something in India, people will help in the West. If you want to start something, people will help in India, in the West, in the first world.
If they see something happening, they might chip in. And this is something, if this is true or this is the substantial fact, then people who want to start mega projects in the first world, they should pay heed to this. That if I ask for, oh, here is an $8 million project, can you give me half a million? The person may not be favourable.
Rather, if they say that, or if you tell them that, this is a project in six phases. In the first phase, we will have a small temple room, Sankirtan room, multimedia, preaching room, whatever, and free food for the homeless or whatever. So, this is just one-sixth of the thing.
They might see the thing in action and they might not come up with half a million, but at least 100,000 if they are having that capacity. Another point is, in India, ISKCON was very quick to, I would say, my observation, very quick to utilise things like, give donation for cows, like in Pitrapaksha or others, just feed the local Brahmins staying in the temple, or Brahmanbhojan is a kind of accepted word. I mean, it doesn’t have any other colours.
Brahmanbhojan, Prithibhojan, whatever. Gita, that is Shastra donation. Shastra donation is a very good scheme because, like for example, right now, I am in the thick of that marathon management.
The BBT gives the book for, say, 127 rupees and expects the temple to sell it for 130 rupees. Now, 3 rupees, if one cent is 70 paisa, then we are getting something like 4 cents. No, 40 cents.
Not 40, 1 cent is 70 paisa, correct? So, 4 cents is what we get as a margin. Now, how come a temple is supposed to run a whole godown, logistics, fuel charges, salaries for some specially employed people, transportation, and then make profits on marathon to support a temple. So, supporting a temple through the books formula, I don’t think any temple in India is using that.
They are using other things where people gladly give, and especially for a big project. Like, I am not talking of TOVP because TOVP is considered like the heartbeat of all of ISKCON worldwide. So, let us put that aside.
But other temples, big ones, and as I said, we will not take any names or mention anybody, but they are not doing so well. They are struggling like anything, as you said for, like Pujaris need to be paid, the cooks need to be paid, maintenance people need to be paid, accountant needs to be paid. So, this is the danger that Prabhupada said, we may lose the focus.
So, a big project is supposed to become big focus, but the danger is it can take away from the real focus. True. So, the challenge is that, especially Prabhupada was also quite strongly opposed to the idea of ever closing the centre.
He would say it is a disgrace. So, in one sense, once the centre has been opened, he would want it to go on and there are quite strong quotes of Prabhupada about that. So, of kind of, especially if Deities have been installed, then that’s even a bigger challenge.
So, we may rush into something and we may even succeed in starting, but sustaining and sustaining for a significant amount of time to come is a challenge. Of course, we can say that maybe devotee in the first generation, when they were having big centres in the West, not many would have envisioned the unexpected events that happened, which led to the demographic decrease in our movements, members in the West and devotees in the West. And that even if you say that doesn’t happen, even if you say, yes, we will keep doing outreach and we will keep getting good number of people, but still we need people to do that outreach also.
So, and temples need management, temple need a significant, any big project requires a significant amount of management. So, that takes a significant amount of energy. So, it could be, broadly speaking, I talked with several leaders about this and one of the things which they say is that, is it that the community needs a temple or the temple needs the community? So, now in one sense, we can say both are for Krishna.
I’ll do in temple is for Krishna and the community is for Krishna. We’re all here for Krishna. It’s Krishna consciousness.
But then it’s like, is the temple meant for the community and the community meant for temple? So, it’s both ways, definitely. But at one level, we could say the community is, the Krishna can manifest in people’s homes, in small home temples and Krishna can manifest in various ways. The community is most important.
Like I said, in India, there are so many temples, but there are no communities. And building more temples is not in that sense constructive. And one circumstantially imposed, but amazingly successful example of this is in the Middle East.
Without taking specifics, because of the nature of the legal and religious situation, in those countries, there’s practically no possibility of building temples or very, very remote possibility. So, devotees all that they can still, devotees when they want to practise bhakti, they hire a hall and maybe they hire it only for afternoon or something, or in some places, in some places only, we have a temple. But then we can’t make it very ostentatious, very conspicuous.
So, but still, in my understanding, Middle East is one of the most thriving devotee communities. So, we have had, now you could say that if those devotees want, if the devotee had the facility, they would all have built temples there locally, no doubt about it. But the fact is that they didn’t, they have it because of circumstance.
And has that significantly affected the growth of the community? Actually, according to some devotees over there, they said far from it, it is the opposite. Because if there’s no one major central temple, then devotees can form small, small groups nearby. So, there are two prominent cities, which are just like 40 minute ride from each other.
And each of them, one of them has a Sunday programme with 800 people coming. Another has a place where they have almost 400 people coming. And they’re two different communities.
So, we can develop communities and help people come closer to Krishna without temples also. Now, of course, there are many challenges, especially from a cultural perspective, from a devotional perspective. There is a temple creates a sense of centrality.
It becomes a centre. The word centre is also associated with the word central. It creates a central focus.
This is where we belong. This is what we identify with. It’s like a cultural and spiritual home in this world also.
And not having that has its effects, negative effects, we can say. But that’s an example of a community manifesting and moving toward Krishna without a temple manifesting also. Any thoughts on this? Yeah, it’s a very good example.
You almost seem to suggest and I also got the feeling that once the idea of buying a plot of land or getting it from the government and then raising funds and making it a temple. Once you are sure that there is no point in wasting time on even thinking about this, then all that energy is channelised towards how do we expand our communities based on whatever resources we have. Can we say like that for the Middle East? That there is absolutely no chance of entertaining that thought.
Even if somebody says I would like to buy land. Well, the government says nobody can buy land. So there is no question of any entertaining those kind of thoughts.
And then as you said, within 40 minutes in say any other temple, any other place in India, there will be a lot of man hours spent in. Okay, why are you having two distinct communities? Why not have something here and people can come, they can travel. So this is the beauty of it.
And if I see like what are the quotes where Prabhupada talked about a big project? And then what about those places where that thing is not possible? Overwhelmingly, you have an idea that our main focus is to spread the holy name. Our main focus is to make people conscious of Krishna. Our main focus is to bring people to devotional service.
Our main focus is to train people into performing bhakti yoga at home. So scenario A, a big project, Prabhupada’s mandate and it galvanises people. It is like a cohesive factor.
It brings people, it unites people, it dissolves egos. People work with those whom they may not like, do not like, whatever. And then that satisfaction of doing something big for Prabhupada.
Scenario B, where there is no mandate by Prabhupada. And even a little bit of common sense can make you understand that things are not as what they were in the 70s or 80s. And then we may lose all these things.
We may lose families, we may lose the notion of making people bhakti yogis at home. They can do devotional service by not coming here. So, very true.
It’s an interesting point you made that if we have, if our purpose is to spread the holy name, make people conscious of Krishna, then that purpose, how best will it be served? And in some ways, anything big, it requires big maintenance. But that which is not big, it doesn’t require that much maintenance. Now, of course, there’s the other side of this, that sometimes just the responsibility of maintaining makes people become serious and committed.
Oh, this was a temple and there’s nobody to take care. I’ll come forward and take care. So, we will get volunteers also.
We will get people interested. So, there’s no denying that aspect. How to put it like, how to put it that big projects attract big people.
That is also true. So, we have people of influence. There are influential people in society.
They’re unlikely to ever go to small temples or small projects. But there’s something. So, Prabhupada said we would like to reach out to the leaders in society.
And generally, they expect leaders in society in whatever term, whatever sense we are using it. But they will want to go to places that have something special, that’s something distinctive. So, because we have significantly big temples, that is why, say, we can connect with influential people in the industry, maybe in the media, in Bollywood, in politics.
And I was talking with one prominent ISKCON India leader and he says that ISKCON has a lot of respect in India in the mainstream. He’s using my marketing language. He says the brand ISKCON has a lot of prestige with it.
People want to come. So, which is interesting to know. Delightful also to know.
But the thing is, like earlier I said, are the temples meant for communities or communities meant for temples? Well, both need to be symbiotic. But it could be that if there is a sufficiently large and dynamic community, then a big temple, it not only makes sense, it may even become a necessity. Because then that whole community can come together.
So, it’s not a matter of whether to not have big projects. It’s not that don’t have big projects, but rather the first focus on building a community. And then have a project.
But if you start at a particular place, oh, this is the project we want to build. Then what is the difference between donor cultivation and devotee cultivation? So, if we have purpose only to build a big temple, then it becomes more like donor cultivation. Who can give the maximum? Of course, that is not unselfish.
That is also done from the service of Krishna. But then if some people may not be able to contribute financially significantly, then what is the point of cultivating? Then that sort of utilitarian mentality comes up and that is also not healthy. So, community first and then temples as a organic result of the expansion of the community is much more healthy and sustainable.
Agreed. That was a beautiful point that does the temple. Do you need a temple because the community needs it? Or now that you have a big temple, you need a big community.
And now how to fill that? Yeah. Now I come to the last point of last points of my notes. And that is kind of a checklist.
It could be like a horror checklist. Horror checklist. Oh God.
Horror checklist. Well, I should not be using humour because it could be a serious thing. It could be actually an emotionally dragging thing for many devotees and I have talks with them.
But it has to be done because for the sake of our audience, I am not a big manager, not a fundraiser. Neither is Chaitanya Charan Prabhu. Kind of we are having that kind of attitude that okay, we both of us have a string of big projects under our sleeve or that’s the laurels we are wearing.
And therefore we are saying that no, this is just a simple common sense observation. And if the shoe fits, wear it. Otherwise, it is just like two ordinary views of two ordinary devotees.
That’s what I would put it. I’m not asking for any plan of action or something. So why I’m calling it a horror checklist because these things are there.
They’re obvious. But they’re not kind of noticed or they’re not kind of scrutinizingly seen. So point number one, I’ll just make point number one, two like that.
And if you want, we can add something. Point number one of my checklist, the project dragging for years, if not more than a decade. One, how do I put it? A prominent feature of a big project gone bad.
That place is not kind of conducive for such a big project. Again, I’m not putting any proper mandated projects or something which was already done. No, we are talking of say post 1999 or that kind of error when something was started.
So project dragging for years. Why specifically post 1999? No, I said 1977. No, 1977 Prabhupada could have said something that do this here, do that there.
I would like to save this. So that also comes in the category of say something with Prabhupada saw that he wants to make it big like Juhu. Of course, it was inaugurated after Prabhupada departed for Malacca.
But now we are talking of where somebody taking a leave from Prabhupada’s management book and trying to do something. And then the result is like a project being dragged for so many years. So it’s like the elephant in the room.
It is the truth is there, but nobody wants to speak about it. Why? Because of this infatuation that let us complete the project and then we’ll have big preaching. So this is putting the cart before the horse.
If you don’t have that much of a community strength. So that’s why project dragging for years. Checklist number two, multiple committees in quick succession.
So it’s like, oh, there were six or seven steering committees, project management committees or fundraising committees. So what happened? Why? Three, four people come in a committee and then they immediately start something. And after some time, they all resign or some people leave.
So that kind of high mobility among the people, managerial people, that kind of, I’m not saying all of these are applicable to all projects. But these are some of the salient features of something which is kind of a, as I say, a millstone around your neck. That’s the English expression.
You’re simply dragged down by that. I think Vakthishanth Siddhartha also said something like that. He said that if you are not hearing and reading regularly, then deity worship will seem like a burden around your neck.
Oh, yeah. Yeah. The third item in my list is a very headstrong leader or leader with a reputation of not being good listener or listeners.
Okay. Now this could be a, I hope it’s not a personal attack on anybody. Sometimes I feel people become headstrong once they get attached mentally to an idea of a big project.
That also could happen. One point about this is that at one level, just to come to Krishna consciousness, one needs to be strong minded. Yes.
We have to go against many of the, of course, a significant number of the values of the world. So, and especially if somebody in addition has the nature of being, taking initiative and being a leader, then for that person, once they become convinced about something, they just want, they’ll insist on persisting in that. And that’s why it becomes difficult for them to leave alone, stop, leave alone like reverse or slow down.
Even stopping becomes difficult. It becomes like a, not just a personal defeat. It also becomes like a spiritual defeat.
So, that means I failed in my apportion to service to Krishna. One of the things which I found is that while wanting to make a devotional offering can be a great motivation, it can also become a great obsession. Yes.
Before I die, I want to do something wonderful for Krishna. That’s a noble aspiration we can say. But in doing something wonderful for Krishna, what are we doing? Are we stepping on other people’s toes? Are we doing something which are not so wonderful? Are we sometimes the opposite of wonderful also? Then it could become a problem.
Just to give a very bad political analogy, one president of a big nation, he created such a mess. And when the press accosted him, that don’t you think that people will find out what kind of mess you have created? So, he said, by the time they find out, I’ll be out of the office. My God.
So, I’m comparing this to somebody who says that, like you said, before I die, I would like to make this project come true. But what about the management and the maintenance of it? And you have scarcely done anything for it. So, you feel that, okay, I have done my part.
Now, the maintenance is your baby. I would say that’s very callous and that’s not very careful. Next item on my checklist is senior… Sorry, just to bring this, I got a very striking point here that nowadays startups are a very big thing and people want to, people take up a small company, they buy it and they make it big and then they sell it.
So, what even in the industry they have found is people who are very good at startups are not very good at maintenance. So, they become restless. So, in one sense, okay, I want to start something new and they will go ahead.
So, they have to hand over in a graceful way, a smooth transfer to somebody who has the tendency to maintain. So, it is almost like a different set of skills, a different set of attitudes are required for creation and different set is required for maintenance. Because creation is more of adventure, risk taking, whereas maintenance is more of steadiness, more of, you could say, risk avoidance, more of predictability, more of routines, standardizations.
So, that is also a challenge that those who make a big project because of no defect on their part, they may not actually be the best people or be at all suited to maintain the project. Krishna also talks about we all act according to our swadharma, nigraha kim karishisi. So, it seems according to some, there is this genre of financial psychology.
That is about how people manage finances. Why are some people always short of money? Why do people don’t save at all? So, according to that, it seems these two are just different mindsets. Some people get a sense of that I am someone because I have saved this much money.
And some people get, I am someone significant because I am spending so much money. So, it’s two different psychologies itself. And they seem to be like innate natures.
So, we can’t literally apply to devotees. But at the same time, it’s true for some devotees, risk taking and making big projects is what gives them a sense of being alive in Krishna consciousness. But for them, if the project is already there, now what? It’s almost like a daily grind.
I don’t want to be a part of it. So, then that also becomes a problem. Just to add to this point, creation or inauguration of a project is a one-time ecstasy.
Yes. And management of it, sustenance of it, I doubt whether you can call it ecstasy. It’s more like, it’s more like a duty, more like a job, as you said, the daily grind.
Yeah. There’s one significant quote of Prabhupada, which I’ve talked with several leaders and they said that it is misused. I’m talking to Giriraj Maharaj specifically also.
Prabhupada said, shoot the rhino. Oh, yes. I was wondering where that point went.
Maybe it’s now time to make some clarification. What was your interaction with Giriraj Maharaj about that? Yeah. So, the shoot the rhino.
Now, of course, nowadays, hunting itself is rightfully, you can say, fallen into disrepute, disapproval in public media. So, that is, of course, a sign, we could say a good sign. Animals are not being killed.
But the metaphor itself meant that attempt something impossible. Rhinos are very difficult to catch and shoot or a team or in prison or whatever you want to do with them. It’s difficult.
So, if somebody fails. Okay. Yeah, it was tough.
Doesn’t matter. You failed. You succeeded.
That was spectacular. So, Prabhupada used that metaphor, but he used it specifically for one time programme. Your one time access reminded me, say, when Prabhupada came to India, he wanted to do a grand Pannal programme in the cross-Maidan, for example, that eventually they decided that.
And he said, we will get 20,000 people to come for this. But the devotees had no conception of this many people coming for their programmes. And how are they going to happen? Prabhupada said, you are Americans.
The whole world thinks that you do something spectacular. So, make do something spectacular for Krishna now. And they went and approached eminent citizens in Mumbai, especially, and they were able to do it.
And 20,000 people came for the programme. And Prabhupada was using it in that context that shoot the rhino, that something which is one time, if it works great, if it doesn’t work, okay, it’s not a great loss. We tried.
However, with respect to building temples, Prabhupada never used that metaphor. So, Prabhupada was very grounded. So, for example, when Vrindavan temple was built, it was understood that in Vrindavan, we are unlikely to do much preaching.
And therefore, generally a community is built. And then the community contributes to the maintenance of the temple because the community feels they’re getting spiritual substance in the temple. And there is spiritual nourishment in the temple.
But Vrindavan is the land of temples. And people come there primarily as tourists and pilgrims. And they may give some donations, but that may not be enough to sustain the temple.
So, Prabhupada, right from the beginning, when he created the temple, he also created a guest house. And now, of course, Vrindavan has become quite, you could say, progressed, commercialised. Basically, a lot of modernity has come over there.
But at that time, the MBT guest house was among the best, best residential places available in Vrindavan. I was told by the leaders in Vrindavan that even now when prominent government, political, industrial leaders, they visit Vrindavan, they stay in MBT. In fact, they themselves tell, we would like to stay.
And they are able to do good communications and relationship building through that. So, it is a very good facility. Prabhupada said that it’s almost like a commercial venture.
It’s a guest house where people pay and stay. So, Prabhupada said from that, the revenue will generate will be used for maintaining the temple. So, Prabhupada was in that sense very realistic.
So, he was, the metaphor that is used is that the head was in the sky, but his feet were on the ground. So, sometimes some quotes we use of Prabhupada and those are only about Prabhupada’s aspects of his head in the sky, dreaming big. He is wanting to do big.
He said, my disease is I can’t think small. So, that is his feet, his head was in the sky, but his feet were firmly on the ground. So, that part sometimes it’s not very, it’s not particularly exciting.
It’s not, you could say energising. It’s not the stuff of speeches that can galvanise people and that can inspire dreams. So, that part often gets neglected.
Thank you for putting this record straight. Because it’s a phrase which we see bandied around so many times, like just go and get a rhino. I mean, I like the simplicity of it.
Aim for the rhino. You get it. You’re glorious.
You don’t get it. You’re still glorious. Now, it’s like a win-win situation.
Who would not want to do that? But as you rightly said, it is not, it was just meant for a one-time programme. So, my next point, can I go to the next point? Yeah, sure. So, senior devotees are afraid to speak their hearts out, especially with a leader or leaders.
So, when I say senior, it would mean like right now, in today’s context, Prabhupada disciples, GBCs, gurus or those who have seen such projects not get off the ground and would like to give a healthy dose of common sense. But in our discussion, like problem projects, you can call them like that. Senior devotees are not either encouraged or they are afraid to speak for various reasons.
And as I said previously, the headstrong leader or committee, they’re not good listeners. They would rather have only those who could be travelling preachers coming from other parts of the world, just coming once in a year, two years, three years and saying, oh, Maharaj, just bless our project. And they say, okay, blessings.
There is no real blessing in that sense, but there are devotees who could be well-wishers and could speak common sense, but they don’t. And the last point, you want to speak something on that or should I go to the last one? No. So, this is also one challenge that at one level, there is a certain level of independence required as one becomes senior, one has one’s vision of how to do things, how, because we are individuals, we want to make individual offerings to Krishna.
But then, especially if you’re building a temple or having a community, that is not an individual offering. That is a collective offering. So, there is, so, if somebody is writing a book, you know, a book is a team project in many ways, but because that’s an individual offering.
So, there are some things which are individual offerings and some which are team offerings. And if something is a team offering, then the individual, if that is driven solely by an individual and the team is not on board or team is not heard, then it becomes a problem. So, that is something which is a matter of definite concern.
If the leaders don’t, senior devotees, senior leaders, you could say that the leaders apart from the main leader, they are not able to speak out. So, yeah. Last on my list is little concern given to this question, how will we maintain it in the future? And many times the answer is Krishna will provide.
This I have seen where there is like a senior in age kind of a promoter group and they are saying that we should build this temple. And then there is a second generation, relatively younger group in the age group of say 22 to 35 or 38. And these are professionals.
So, they work in project management or in other such similar capacity in the corporate world. So, right now when nothing is there, but right now if you make this project come into being, let us say we will need $40,000 a month just for the maintenance of this huge thing. And what do we do? And the answer is given Krishna will provide.
This is actually maybe a whole different subject. We should have a separate podcast on this. What does dependence on Krishna or faith on Krishna or devotion to Krishna mean in real life terms? Yeah.
So, it is almost like if we say Krishna will provide, don’t you have faith in Krishna? That is, there are some answers, some statements made to say respond to questions and there are some statements meant to stop the questions. Okay. So, this is like that.
So, it’s when you say today faith Krishna will provide, it becomes from the issue, it becomes almost like a personal challenge or a personal attack on the devotee itself. And I find that quite manipulative if I may use that word that the person asking that may not have that intention. But it is like that.
It is almost like what can that person see if you say Krishna will provide. So, I’ve thought about it. There’s a lot that can be said.
First is that I’d like to start from scripture itself. If you see in the Mahabharata, Arjuna, the Pandavas knew that there was going to be a war eventually. And they also knew that Krishna would be with them because Krishna was infuriated when he heard about how Draupadi had been dishonoured and how the Pandavas had been dispossessed through a ring gambling match.
And Krishna came to meet them in their exile. I think it was Kamyavan, he came to meet them. So, but still what did the Pandavas do? They didn’t think when the war comes, Krishna will help us win.
Arjuna performed severe austerities. Arjuna left the remaining Pandavas. Arjuna was a central warrior.
He knew he was going to play a pivotal role. So, to perform severe austerities, it is bad enough to have to live a kingdom and live in the forest. But now he left even his family in the forest and went to the Himalayas and performed severe austerities.
Why? To get more and more weapons by performing the austerities and getting celestial weapons through thereby as a reward for the austerities. So, this is even while Krishna is present, Arjuna doesn’t have that policy that Krishna will provide. He is industriously making efforts to provide.
So, broadly my understanding is that we can start from that example. And now we can go to the other example and say that in the Ramayana, the monkeys were completely, they had very primitive weapons and their army was quite disorganised. There was after monkeys and Ravana’s army was well organised.
They had much more. At those times, in that context, sophisticated weapons that may be true at one level. The sticks and stones and mountain peaks are classified as primitive.
That’s what the idea is. Yeah, I mean, they were not really like swords and smithers and that kind of weapons they didn’t have. So, they didn’t have that sort of weapons, but they were formidable warriors.
They were trained very well. So, sometimes the idea that how like almost monkeys are empowered to defeat. Oh, I see.
I get it. I get it. That’s the idea.
So, that’s the idea. But the point is that, okay, they were not just simple monkeys. They were celestial monkeys.
And from what I heard, Vanara is different from a Bandar or whatever. Vanara is a species which is actually considered to be a celestial kind of apes. Oh, yeah.
So, it says we can draw some comparisons, but not exactly similar. It’s not that. So, the point is that it’s always there has been grounding in reality has been there.
I mean, that is fighting. What about temple construction? Well, Prabhupada would often say that practising Krishna consciousness and even sharing Krishna consciousness is like declaring a war against the illusory energy. And few things are as outright, as forefront, as provocative a war call as wanting to build a temple.
So, we need to be equipped. So, Krishna will provide. What does that mean? Maybe one way Krishna is providing is providing us intelligence to learn how to provide.
So, I don’t think Krishna will provide is a reasonable argument for putting all caution and intelligence on the side. So, faith, what does faith mean? Now, there are many different contexts and what you can say faith means, but faith doesn’t mean putting yourself into trouble and expecting God to get you out of trouble, even if you seem to be doing it for God. So, maybe you can tell me if there are any parallels to this in our tradition.
I read about this in the Bible that when Jesus was fasting for 40 days, he was up in the mountain and then the devil came to him and said that you are saying to people that God will protect. You still believe that? He said, of course, God will protect. He says, okay, you jump down this mountain into the valley.
Let’s see if your God protects you. And Jesus says, I will not jump down. He said, why not? He said that if you push me down, my God will protect me, but I will not jump down.
So, the import that Christian theologians give for this is that if trouble comes of its own accord, then yes, God protects. Of course, how God protects also a different question, but getting oneself into trouble and then expecting God to protect. That is not exactly, that is not faith.
That is fool, we call it foolhardiness or whatever. And different people, of course, have different opinions about this. Just Prabhupada did make a big leap of faith when he went to America.
But even then, Prabhupada took steps systematically. Prabhupada didn’t just go into New York not knowing anybody. Prabhupada didn’t go into the Lower East Side not knowing anybody.
He was invited there. So, it was a big leap of trust, leap of faith for him. But still, my understanding was that having faith is not equivalent to being thoughtless or throwing caution to the winds.
Any thoughts on this? That’s very significant. This is one thing. Maybe we can even have a longer discussion, as you said, on where do you draw the line between mustering your resources and simultaneously or after that depending on Krishna.
This is a much, as I can say, the bandied language in management meetings. And that was even a more accurate thing that, is this answer like a explanatory answer or it’s like a valve which is put on that, no more questions. Krishna will provide and that’s it.
Yeah, that’s true. So, my notes have ended here. If you want, we can add something or we can have a recap.
Yeah, just one or two points. I would say through all this, we might be considered as just armchair thinkers who have never done anything for Krishna and we are criticising those who are doing something for Krishna. We hope that we don’t come out that way.
In a sense, I could say that I am less of a manager than you are. You are already the temple president of a significantly successful temple and you are also speaking from experience. I am from first-hand experience also.
I am speaking more from observation and discussion and trying to understand. So, this is in no way a criticism of big projects. It is more of a caution about what challenges one might run into.
So, it’s better to know about the challenges and avoid them and not just necessarily avoid them, but prepare for them. Be prepared. So, that would be our broad intention and those who are doing big projects for Krishna, they are also working very, very hard and often they are motivated by great devotional ambition and wonderful things do happen.
So, it’s not minimising their devotional aspiration. It’s just broadening the vision to see the overall picture. Any thoughts on this point? No.
Yeah. So, now I have two questions maybe before we end. First is that if somebody is already involved in a project where the checklist which you gave is very much seen, it is a very well thought out checklist that dragging on, people changing, the leader not listening, the other subordinate leaders feeling silenced and what are the last fifth you said? Krishna will provide.
Yeah. That reference to that and insistence on that utilisation of that particular slogan. So, if somebody is already in this kind of situation, what would be your suggestions to them? Anything specific? Okay.
I’ve thought about that. Hard to give a one size fits all solution. There could be six different projects languishing for decades or whatever and maybe having a unique angle, unique situation.
What I would say to begin with is, what can be done to salvage the project now? It’s like, not to put a too fine a point on that, but in the Karmi world, which we sometimes so detest or we don’t like to compare ourselves with them because their attitude and everything is on self-satisfaction, but project management sometimes is project management. People have shelled billion dollar projects because it just makes sense to stop it now rather than keep on losing money on that. So, sometimes Karmis who don’t have, I don’t like to use the word all the time, but here you can say that those who are just having a big company or something or a product just for the sake of money making, they have shown the common sense of stopping the loss, as they say.
And what is the word? Cutting the losses? Cutting the losses? Yeah. So, it’s like, if you stop now, at least you control your losses. You continue more for a longer period of time, you can continue to have more loss.
Second point side by side is, what can be salvaged from what we have now? Like if it is a six acres, 10 acres or 20 million, 15 million dollar project and we just have 13, 14, 15, 20 percent, 35 percent of whatever we have, can the extra money be, can the residual resources be used for making something which fits our size now? Later if needed. We can even remodel things because then that Krishna will provide actually comes in vogue that, okay, we have a hall just meant for 125 people and we have 350 people coming now. Then it makes sense to demolish it and make it a bigger one.
But right now if you’re planning for a 800 capacity hall, when not even one tenth of people come, that’s what we are talking about. So, first is cut your losses. Secondly, scale it down to something manageable.
Many times people would give money provided you scale it down and make something, as I said, this devotee’s observation, in the West especially, first world, we show something going on, people can help. So, these are two things which I have to suggest. Yeah, I think in this case also it’s in the project.
The second point what you’re saying is if the project is also envisioned in phases, then that’s much, then it’s possible. Okay, we complete one phase, we have something. So, it’s instead of having this idea of digital logic almost 1-0, we want like that.
If you see Prabhupada started that way. Padampada Singhania wanted 1-0 that I want a grand temple or I will have nothing. Prabhupada said, well, we can’t have a grand temple right now.
Prabhupada started with a simple matchless gift, which is a storefront. And in fact, it’s in some ways when I went to the storefront in 26th Avenue and I saw that, it’s difficult to imagine a more humbler beginning for a global movement. Both the signs over there, that is just completely inconspicuous in the architecture.
Maybe the architecture was not there at that time, but still intrinsically that building has nothing significant. So, it is inconspicuous. And then Prabhupada went and Tompkins Square Park and that’s where he did the Tirthan.
There is also practically no infrastructure. So, instead of envisioning like a 1-0, where either we have to make it or we’ll have nothing. If we can have more of analogue, okay, we’ll do this phase and then we’ll do this phase and then we’ll do this phase.
We can have a big vision, but we can have small phases in going toward that big vision. So, if that happens, then it’s relatively, it’s possible to, okay, we have spent this much and we decided that this is not working. So, we’ll finish with this and we’ll keep this.
But if it becomes very difficult in cutting, it also becomes very difficult if it is 1-0 thing and we completed phase 1 and we can’t do phase 2-3, okay, at least we have something. But there’s only one phase only and that’s all that is there. And if we are not completing that, we have nothing.
And it becomes very, very difficult to turn back in that case. Yes, I agree. Yeah, true.
And I believe, just one maybe cautionary, my concluding point is, as a movement also we are maturing and to some extent now, projects can’t be started simply by one individual leader’s initiative. Now, some people may feel this is bureaucratization, but I think it’s just caution that if somebody is acquiring a big land, somebody is running a big project, it generally has to be approved by the GBC or the local GBC committee authority. Now, how much oversight and regulation that will bring in, but I think we as a movement have also recognised that it’s very easy to take in, to take in, to get, to start off a project.
But once we put the ISCON name, then it is also the name, the reputation that becomes at stake. So, there is a certain amount of caution in starting projects. So, we are learning, there’s no doubt about that.
And I talked with a few leaders who are known for their big projects and they also say that, they told me that, now I tell all my subordinates that, first build a community, then build a temple. Don’t talk about a temple unless you have this much community. So, there’s definitely, as compared to a decade or two ago, at least in India, I would say there is a recognition of not scaling down the ambition, but balancing the ambition with say, with due caution or with a due harmonisation of priorities.
In the West, it’s relatively difficult because building a community itself is going to be a huge challenge. Because India itself, Indians and Hindus are a minority over there. And even if you say, we are a large minority in America, but we are distributed.
America is bigger than India. So, if we are going to build a project in one particular place, how many potential people are there? And even if we attract Western people, they are not necessarily attracted to the culture and the architecture and they are not likely to contribute for a temple. For them, it’s more like a spiritual experience and spiritual quest.
So, in that sense, big temples over there are a far bigger challenge than in India. So, caution would be required. So, those are some couple of quick points I had.
I would like to summarise. Yes. So, you could say broadly we discussed today about opportunities and concerns with big projects.
So, from the opportunities perspective, discuss that first is that big projects attract people. Prabhupada wanted a grand projects in Juhu and Mayapur, Juhu and Vrindavan and Mayapur that people from near and far would come. So, that’s bigger and for outreach, first awareness is required.
Otherwise, how will people come in there? And that the second thing is that it also a devotional offering. Devotees want to offer the best to Krishna. So, in the tradition itself offering big temples to the Lord has been a part of the tradition.
Kings would build big temples for people, for citizens. Here, just one point, maybe this is a diversion, but I was going to speak this that, how should I put it carefully that, in the past, it was the kings who build big temples. I don’t, I have not studied Indian architectural history extensively.
But from whatever little I have studied, I haven’t found any saints or any Brahmins personally taking the initiative to build big temples. Quite often, the Brahmin or the saints, they would, their charisma, their purity, their potency would attract people, maybe attract some royalty and they would build big temples. So, it’s not that the Acharyas themselves would get down in the integrities.
So, unfortunately, we are in a movement where we don’t have royalty who will sponsor a temple. So, sometimes Brahmins have to, those who are saints and Brahmins and sadhus, they have to get down into that. So, that’s the challenge.
So, how the tradition is to be applied, that has to be considered. So, that’s it. You want to comment anything on this? No.
Just like Sanatan Goswami had that much and built the Radha Madana temple. Yes. So, he didn’t put in any efforts himself in building the temple.
In that sense. I would say not any efforts, but he was not consumed by the building of the temple. Correct.
Now, we could say Prabhupada was the exception. Prabhupada himself was involved in the, in practically, he was overseeing the construction of the temple. Prabhupada said that.
Prabhupada was at one time counting cement as if it was gold in Vrindavan. So, we have that example also. But at the same time, as you said, there are certain projects which Prabhupada wanted, which were big.
But whether all of them, we could apply the same standard is questionable. So, the second point that it could be a devotional offering and third, it could be that it’s the way we make our presence felt. It is a part of a broader cultural trend in India to build big temples in the post-independence phase.
And Prabhupada, to assert one’s national identity, national pride. So, Prabhupada channelled that. And that’s fine.
Now, internally, we could say it was because of some kind of competition. We want to make the biggest offering to Prabhupada and Krishna. That could also be a reason.
And that could be constructive, but not if some other flip things come up. So, one of the things which major we discussed is, okay, starting a temple is fine, but maintaining is tough. And maintenance requires, if we have big temples, big deities, and then many deities, then who is going to take care of the deities? How are you going to? So, instead of the temple supporting outreach, the temple becomes, instead of helping people come close to Krishna, people become seen simply as sources of financial support and that alienates instead of attracting people.
The maintenance is a huge challenge and that needs to be solidly planned. So, Prabhupada planned for a grand Vrindavan temple. He planned for the maintenance of the temple by having guest houses and other things.
So, that was one part of why we need significantly big temples is that Prabhupada wanted also people to have an immersive experience of staying in the temples. So, some comfortable facilities. But the facilities themselves would be self-maintaining or even assisting the maintenance of the temple also.
Then you talked about this checklist. So, maintenance we discussed elaborately. The challenge of maintenance is huge and especially if the maintenance starts detracting from outreach, then it is counterproductive.
And we discussed in the Middle East that even without temples also outreach is happening in a significant way. So, are temples meant for the community or are communities meant for the temple? So, both are meant for Krishna ultimately. But primarily we could say that first build a community and then build up a temple.
Otherwise, after build a temple, then we may become, we get caught more in donor cultivation than a devotee cultivation. So, then you talked about, okay, how do we know if we are in a project already? How can we know that this project is on that unhealthy zone? So, I think the first parameter could be that it just drags on far beyond its forecasted vision. Second is that the committees keep changing.
Third is that the leader is not ready to listen to concerns by others. Fourth is that other subordinate leaders or others in the team feel silenced, feel unheard. And then, of course, there is this philosophical discussion stopper, you could say.
Have faith in Krishna. Krishna will provide. So, that is Krishna sometimes, Krishna providing is not an excuse for we not planning, we not preparing.
So, then toward the end we discuss that if somebody is in such a project. So, overall the point here is not to criticise big projects, but to contextualise the ambition for big projects in terms of the larger picture of what challenges will come and how they can be faced. And then, if somebody is already in such a big project, the best way would be that I will try to cut the losses and try to see what can be salvaged.
Salvage is a very unpleasant word, but sometimes that is what we have to do. So, rather than having a 1-0 approach, if there is more of an analogue kind of approach, that means multiple phases, then something tangible at least comes up. Like you said that, show me something, then we will provide.
So, that way we will have something to show also if it’s a phased project. And finally, we discuss that ultimately, for all of us, we are here to come closer to Krishna, to chant Hare Krishna, to glorify Krishna, and that has to be the priority and around that. So, if we have a community doing that, then building a temple, building a grand temple can unify the community, can galvanise the community, can inspire the community and then wonderful things can happen.
Any other points you want to add to or anything I left out? No, you covered everything. Thank you. Thank you very much.
It was a very, I could say, important and somewhat sobering discussion. Thank you. Hare Krishna.