In this thread, someone points out that most Hindu groups don’t prosteletyze. This reminded me of the Hare Krishna movement, which IIRC was founded in the US but is based on Hindu writings/philosophy/pantheon. They are also pretty notoriously evangelical.
I was just curious - those of you with an Indian/Hindu background - how are the Krishna Consciousness people viewed? I get the impression that it’s similar to how the larger Muslim community views the Nation of Islam - sort of an embarrassed “Yeah, that’s my weird American cousin, can’t really deny the connection but maaan I wish he’d shut up sometimes.”
Is that accurate? Or is it considered to be more like the Jews and the Christians - one sprang from the other, but they aren’t really considered to be the same faith at all, just two different faiths that happen to share (part of) a holy book?
The International Society for Krishna Consciousness was founded by a 70 year old Indian executive, Swami Prabhupada. Although it was founded in the US, it had real Indian roots, according to author John Hubner’s book Monkey on a Stick and his website:
Hubner makes Prabhupada out to be dedicated and honest (although it’s never been clear to me how legit his religious background was), who dealt with those he saw as corrupting the lifestyle or the message. But he hasn’t got much good to say about his successors. Or about how “mainstream” the movement was.
FWIW, here’s Wikipedia’s take on them:
The Nation of Islam is to Islam as the Mormons are to the rest of Christianity. They believe a lot of the same things but also believe a lot of additional stuff as well. Nobody who isn’t Nation of Islam believes that Wallace Fard Muhammad is the Mahdi, just as no non-Mormons believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet.
Technically, the Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS) ( nowadays the Community of Christ,and headquartered in Independence Missouri) isn’t considered “Mormon”, but definitely believes Joseph Smith was an inspired prophet, and accepts the Book of Mormon. So did a lot of other “splinter groups” that have split off the main LDS Church during the past 150 years.
The NOI has a completely different theology, prophetology, mythic history and eschatology. It’s a completely different religion which is not recognized as Islamic by any of the major Muslim sects, and NOI members are not allowed into Mecca because they are not considered Muslim.
I think the difference is more than between tradional Christian denominations and LDS. the NOI is more akin to pseudo-Christian race religions like “Christian Identity.”
My apologies. I was using the common definition, which is “anyone who believes Joseph Smith was a prophet and believes the Book of Mormon is the word of God”. That said, the splinter groups are a lot closer to the main body of the LDS than the Nation of Islam is to mainstream Islam…or the Hare Krishnas are to mainstream Hindus.
An Indian friend who economized as an impecunious college student traveling through the U.S. and Europe by stopping by for the dirt-cheap vegetarian meals most of the HK temples/whatever offer rather ungratefully made fun of the mangling of the Hindi language inflicted by the gwailo adherents trying to recite the verses/songs. He was Christian, so probably had limited affection even for mainstream Hinduism, and I think near-contempt for some of the hippie wannabe eastern mystics who joined up with HK in the West.
Are any real Hindus on this board? I’m hoping so because I would love to hear an answer to the actual question which had nothing to do with mormons or muslims.
My understanding from a guy I used to work with was that Hindis accept all religions and beliefs as valid and chose not to denigrate anyones beliefs. So I’m not sure there would really be much thought given to HK’s pratices.
There really is no official “Hindu” religion. That is an umbrella term used to refer a large diversity of different traditions, some overlapping, some quite disparate. The veneration of Krishna is one very old and very mainstream tradition within India.
It’s also incorrect to say that Hindus don’t evangelize, by the way. Some do, but it’s a different kind of evangelization than what we associate with the word. They don’t believe that it has to involve a successful conversion, just a change in the direction of karma that will facilitate enlightement in a different life.
By the way, if the Hare Krishnas give you candy, it’s a special kind of candy (completely harmless, don’t get me wrong, it’s not adulterated or anything), but it’s ritually cooked in such a way (I think it involves chanting and the like) that they believe it will bring people closer to Krishna if they eat it. The person doesn’t have to know anything about it. They think if they can get you to eat the (quite palatable) candy, they will have “saved” you. Maybe not in this life, but somewhere down the road in another life, you will eventually come to Krishna.
“those eccentric cousins of mine” - they are strange, and can be embarrassing sometimes. Hinduism generally, with exceptions, believes every path leads to God, so what are you doing trying to convert people and give them flowers at the airport?
“white people desperately seeking an identity” - Yeah, well, you know there is that subset of white people that latch onto any asian trait & culture because it’s cool and exotic. I am not really convinced most of these people are believers, because they join in their twenties, and all too often in their thirties they are married with kids and back to being good Christians (or whatever). But generally we don’t mind and are more fond of them than anything else.
“but man oh man they have cool temples” - the Hare Krishnas I have met have all been much more fervent in their beliefs. It’s almost like taking Hinduism, which is a henotheistic religion (I think that’s the word) and making it into a kindly, loving monotheistic system. As such they are devoted believers and make a big deal out of everything. They have gorgeous temples usually with huge grounds. For example, when I went to the Golden Temple in W. Virginia it had a HEAVY Hare Krishna presence. They went so far as to have a lovely, ornate wedding between two idols of Radha and Krishna. First of all, Radha and Krishna never married while they were on this earth, so all of the Hindus that were visiting thought it was sort of weird but cute. Secondly, you don’t actually have to have a wedding between idols!
Much more earnest and dedicated than Hinduism generally requires. YMMV OF COURSE - Hinduism doesn’t even remain the same from house to house.
not a hindu but I’ve travelled a lot in India. There are Hare Krishna temples everywhere in India itself, massive ones in Mumbai and New Delhi. They seem perfectly accepted inside India as far as I can tell as an outsider.
Hinduism has so many different sects and cults, the HK are relatively tame compared to some of the other hindu cults inside India.
The Associated Press guideline is a good one as far as not confusing people who are reading your articles, but they’re not really an authority on who is “Mormon” or “not Mormon.” Lots of RLDS people, FLDS people, and members of other splintered-off Restorationist churches call themselves “Mormons,” too – often they consider themselves the only real Mormons.
ETA: Oh, and I forgot to mention: as to the actual topic of the thread, one of the college undergraduates who worked with me in this lab last year was a reasonably devout Hindu (for a biologist, anyway) and one time she went on a rant about how the Hare Krishnas were deluded morons who made all Hindus look bad to Americans. Her vehemence was kind of scary, despite the fact that she was tiny (and if I think someone is tiny, you know they must be pretty short).
I am a Hindu. In the United States, most Hindus I know see the Hare Krishnas as pathetic wanna-bes. As Anaamika said, white people desperately in search of an identity. Their public chanting and other antics, like their little tricks with the flowers and the Bhagavad Gita are seen as embarrassing. But Hindus will happily use their temples, because a temple is a temple, after all.
In India, the Iskcon people get lost among the myriad of personality cults and offshoots. Their temples are principally known for operating very good vegetarian restaurants. Their practices generally mesh with other Hindu practices, but their theology is generally ignored by all but their own members.
Most Hindus I know don’t really believe there is any such thing as “conversion,” so will look sideways at someone born into a Christian or other background who will claim to have “become” Hindus. On the other hand, non-Hindus of all kinds are welcome to participate in Hindu rituals.
I’m not Hindu, nor do I have the slightest interest in Hare Kṛṣṇa religion. But I went to university a couple blocks from the St. Louis ISKCON temple, and I loved their delicious vegetarian cuisine. Seriously. Their chef was renowned coast to coast. So I kept going back for several years just to eat. (I do not believe that eating *prasadam *will make me Kṛṣṇa conscious. So there. Any more than I take seriously the Mormons’ claims to convert my dead ancestors retroactively. I eat *prasadam *because it’s yummy.)
From the late 1970s to the early '80s, I observed the demographic changes there. As the proportion of Westerners declined, the proportion of Hindus from India attending went steadily up. Not only that, I saw a few Hindus of Indian origin beginning to take *sannyasa *with American ISKCON (i.e., formally join the organization so that they would shave their heads, wear the robes, chant incessantly, and live at the temple).
Years later, in the late '90s, I visited the Potomac, MD temple one time. The Sunday evening service was packed. And every single attendee there was Hindu of Indian origin. What I gathered from this demographic shift was not so much that the Hindus fully embraced ISKCON and all its organizational/dogmatic agenda. But rather that their temples had become comfortable zones for Hindus to gather and hang out in, more of a community center, regardless of one’s feelings about ISKCON as an organization.
One odd fact is that ISKCON formally and officially *denies *being Hindu at all. Yep, they categorically reject the term “Hindu” and instead define their religion as “Kṛṣṇa Conscious” or “Vedic.” Nevertheless, the Hindu community doesn’t seem to care about nomenclature and just has come to feel comfortable in that space. After all, the last I looked, the Hindus’ presence dominated the space as surely as in any regular Hindu temple.
P.S. Some years back I was on a business trip to St. Louis and went back to ISKCON for dinner. It was still as good as I remembered. But now the restaurant was being run by Hungarian immigrants. It looks like ISKCON’s biggest source of new recruits is Eastern Europe.
And after dinner I went up and startled those folks out of their wits by speaking to them in Hungarian.
Yep. I think they integrate more or less seamlessly with the rest of the “Hinduisms”. And I don’t think they are viewed as particularly western either. Their headquarters in Vrindaban (which is beautiful, by the way) has a relatively small number of western devotees compared to the huge number of locals who attend darsan &c. there. I think that for most Hindus (in India) the Hare Krishnas are “just another sect” amongst the thousands of others.
Their core beliefs (i.e. the bhakti system) is quite mainstream, which makes it perfectly legitimate for other kinds of Krishna devotees (who doesn’t self-identify as HK) to come to the HK temples.
And yes - the HK are boring IMO - I would much prefer hanging out with Bengali Kali devotees if i had the chance.