What if ISKCON continued to grow significantly in the United States from the 60s to 2020?

[SludgeSlurpee]

I wondered how culture and government would have changed if Prabhupada's movement grew at a significant rate. I would imagine a reasonable percentage for 60+ years would be somewhere round 30% of Americans are of the Vaishnava westernized ISKCON religion as a result of Prabhupada living slightly longer than dying at 69.

There's a lot of variables that would change, but since ISKCON now competes with the American Christian majority, we can say that the counterculture movement of the 60s became something else. How would pop culture change? Would pop culture even be a thing?

The US Constitution and Bill of Rights obviously allows freedom of religion, but the Christian elitists are not fond of sharing a country with a group they view as a threat.
Do you think there would be violence towards the Hindu community? Would other sects like Shaivism or Shaktism\Tantra become underground as the result of ISKCON's success?

I wanted to keep this open ended, let me know some ideas and we can discuss those too.

I get tired of the 10 million alternate WW2 threads, wanted to do something different.

 

[Mark E.]

Americans don't have a problem with benign religious systems and practices. In the sixties, American traditional churches often looked at Asian faiths as peripheral. Growing faith-based communities weren't an issue, at least after 1960, as long as they did not threaten the traditional ones.

 

[SludgeSlurpee]

Americans don't have a problem with benign religious systems and practices. In the sixties, American traditional churches often looked at Asian faiths as peripheral. Growing faith-based communities weren't an issue, at least after 1960, as long as they did not threaten the traditional ones.

Yes, that is true, but eventually the established Christian status quo is going to have their boat rocked. I think 30% is a reasonable metric because Sanatana Dharma even in 2020 is alien to the west, it has it's history of Swamis from India immigrating in the 19th century, but ISKCON is when it started to enter the mainstream. In my opinion, what stopped it was ironically the Boomers themselves. There's a lot of books about how the hippies hijacked ISKCON and that's why they're frowned upon, they're even controversial in India among other Hindu sects.

 

[overoceans]

Airports would be a lot noisier.

 

[Linkwerk]

Yes, that is true, but eventually the established Christian status quo is going to have their boat rocked. I think 30% is a reasonable metric because Sanatana Dharma even in 2020 is alien to the west, it has it's history of Swamis from India immigrating in the 19th century, but ISKCON is when it started to enter the mainstream. In my opinion, what stopped it was ironically the Boomers themselves. There's a lot of books about how the hippies hijacked ISKCON and that's why they're frowned upon, they're even controversial in India among other Hindu sects.

I think you've hit on something here in re: ISKCON's popularity in the west; in short, the hippies ruined it. What made ISKCON grow in the west was it's position as basically a fad, a part of the overall countercultural movement's turn towards spirituality and lifestyle and away from politics. The fact that it swelled to popularity at that time also sort of doomed it in the long run because most people in the US these days would consider the "Hare Krishnas" to be of the scenery of an era of of long hair, jam bands, casual LSD use, etc all something associated with the early-mid 70's. That counter-cultural status led to a surge of money and support and devotees, sure, but OTL I'd argue that the great success of ISKCON as a movement was re-importing that enthusiasm and money in the late 70's back to India. ISKCON is doing pretty well these days with a lot of very wealthy and committed followers in Indian society.

If you want ISKCON to do better in the US, I'd say avoid Prabhupada's immediate rise to celebrity (meeting the Beatles, etc) and have him arrive in California, not NYC. If he sticks around for a decade, slowly entering into the cultural horizons of the alternative spirituality scene in California along with movements like transcendental meditation and Zen Buddhism, then he could become established as more than just a "wacky 60's thing". By the early 80's ATL ISKCON could have a small and growing following of well educated Californians just in time for silicon valley's cadre of libertarian-minded technocrats to come along and become enamored with the movement.

 

[SludgeSlurpee]

I think you've hit on something here in re: ISKCON's popularity in the west; in short, the hippies ruined it. What made ISKCON grow in the west was it's position as basically a fad, a part of the overall countercultural movement's turn towards spirituality and lifestyle and away from politics. The fact that it swelled to popularity at that time also sort of doomed it in the long run because most people in the US these days would consider the "Hare Krishnas" to be of the scenery of an era of of long hair, jam bands, casual LSD use, etc all something associated with the early-mid 70's. That counter-cultural status led to a surge of money and support and devotees, sure, but OTL I'd argue that the great success of ISKCON as a movement was re-importing that enthusiasm and money in the late 70's back to India. ISKCON is doing pretty well these days with a lot of very wealthy and committed followers in Indian society.

If you want ISKCON to do better in the US, I'd say avoid Prabhupada's immediate rise to celebrity (meeting the Beatles, etc) and have him arrive in California, not NYC. If he sticks around for a decade, slowly entering into the cultural horizons of the alternative spirituality scene in California along with movements like transcendental meditation and Zen Buddhism, then he could become established as more than just a "wacky 60's thing". By the early 80's ATL ISKCON could have a small and growing following of well educated Californians just in time for silicon valley's cadre of libertarian-minded technocrats to come along and become enamored with the movement.

I think you hit an interesting premise. I wasn't alive in the 80s, so while I know about the rise of Reagan's neoliberalism and the beginning of the cracks for the USSR, I can't personally decide what changes with ISKCON continuing to be successful, instead of being stagnant in the 60s.

The celebrity branding I think was inevitable, since Americans embrace capitalism and relish in making sure nothing stays sacred, it's no wonder Prabhupada had to just roll with things, because he understood as a foreigner you had to reach out to others differently than in India.

Silicon Valley is an interesting storyline, since they're the superstar today when it comes to being in bed with the department of defense of wall st. Are you saying Silicon Valley would be ran by a few influential ISKCON members? I think the same would apply to government, while separation of church and state is on paper, it's never practiced. I could see some Congressmen and Senators being devotees, and ISKCON having the same lobbying firms that Christians and Muslims have.

 

[SludgeSlurpee]

Airports would be a lot noisier.

Other Dharma devotees are reserved, it's just the Hare Krishna's that are loud.

 

[Twin City Lines]

Airports would be a lot noisier.

Actually, no. Airports found a way to get around court rulings that ISKCON had the right to free speech. They (at least MSP did) establish "free speech zones" that groups could reserve for time periods to do their thing. Because it is based on "time, place, and manner" rather than content, and peaceful, free-flowing traffic is a legitimate compelling interest in an airport, this solution is legal.

 

[SludgeSlurpee]

Actually, no. Airports found a way to get around court rulings that ISKCON had the right to free speech. They (at least MSP did) establish "free speech zones" that groups could reserve for time periods to do their thing. Because it is based on "time, place, and manner" rather than content, and peaceful, free-flowing traffic is a legitimate compelling interest in an airport, this solution is legal.

Hare Krishna and Jehovah's Witnesses are the most in your face religions for attempting to recruit people.

 

[NorCalifornio]

I think you've hit on something here in re: ISKCON's popularity in the west; in short, the hippies ruined it. What made ISKCON grow in the west was it's position as basically a fad, a part of the overall countercultural movement's turn towards spirituality and lifestyle and away from politics. The fact that it swelled to popularity at that time also sort of doomed it in the long run because most people in the US these days would consider the "Hare Krishnas" to be of the scenery of an era of of long hair, jam bands, casual LSD use, etc all something associated with the early-mid 70's. That counter-cultural status led to a surge of money and support and devotees, sure, but OTL I'd argue that the great success of ISKCON as a movement was re-importing that enthusiasm and money in the late 70's back to India. ISKCON is doing pretty well these days with a lot of very wealthy and committed followers in Indian society.

If you want ISKCON to do better in the US, I'd say avoid Prabhupada's immediate rise to celebrity (meeting the Beatles, etc) and have him arrive in California, not NYC. If he sticks around for a decade, slowly entering into the cultural horizons of the alternative spirituality scene in California along with movements like transcendental meditation and Zen Buddhism, then he could become established as more than just a "wacky 60's thing". By the early 80's ATL ISKCON could have a small and growing following of well educated Californians just in time for silicon valley's cadre of libertarian-minded technocrats to come along and become enamored with the movement.

Your first paragraph is spot on. For the second paragraph to work, I think you need more than changes in Prabhupada's life. After all, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (founder of Transcendental Meditation) was even more closely associated with the Beatles than Prabhupada, so any movement associated with the same social milieu as TM would likely be perceived as a '60s thing. You might even need to get rid of the hippie counterculture's high-profile flirtation with Eastern religion entirely.

Even with that, I think the best-case scenario would be ISKCON having nearly as many adherents as the various New Age beliefs do OTL (with New Age spirituality having a correspondingly smaller following). They'd still be vastly outnumbered by small religions like Judaism and Mormonism, and even the most virulent Quran-burning Christian preachers wouldn't pay them much mind.

 

[SludgeSlurpee]

Your first paragraph is spot on. For the second paragraph to work, I think you need more than changes in Prabhupada's life. After all, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (founder of Transcendental Meditation) was even more closely associated with the Beatles than Prabhupada, so any movement associated with the same social milieu as TM would likely be perceived as a '60s thing. You might even need to get rid of the hippie counterculture's high-profile flirtation with Eastern religion entirely.

Even with that, I think the best-case scenario would be ISKCON having nearly as many adherents as the various New Age beliefs do OTL (with New Age spirituality having a correspondingly smaller following). They'd still be vastly outnumbered by small religions like Judaism and Mormonism, and even the most virulent Quran-burning Christian preachers wouldn't pay them much mind.

Hippies would definitely have to go, knowing that in the 80s they were just going to gain their typical Boomer reputation and sellout anyways, abandon all that "free love" garbage.

ISKCON would still need to do something to compete with the stern, abrasive and cold Christian machine. There would need to be some way to sucker people in, much like how the Jehovah's Witnesses attempt to do, but more sophisticated. ISKCON is a centuries old modernized Gaudiya Vaishnava sect. There are many other Dharmic sects in Hinduism that could grow as well, existing as the counterculture to the counterculture.

 

[pricklyBear]

I think Hare Krishnas are actually quite similar to evangelicals in terms of tactics and beliefs. They may seem transcendental and progressive, but in reality they are quite morally conservative and strict in dogma and practice. They view Krishna as the Supreme Lord of all the universe, like evangelicals view Jesus and view reciting mantras as the key to Krishna-consciousness, which is having a personal relationship with Krishna. I think that avoiding the association with the hippies and Beatles would allow ISKCON to present Krishna as the master disciple of Jesus, and thereby win over conservative Christians in Middle America. Bringing hippies and conservative, staid folks would give ISKCON far more credibility and enable it to enter the mainstream.

 

[SludgeSlurpee]

I think Hare Krishnas are actually quite similar to evangelicals in terms of tactics and beliefs. They may seem transcendental and progressive, but in reality they are quite morally conservative and strict in dogma and practice. They view Krishna as the Supreme Lord of all the universe, like evangelicals view Jesus and view reciting mantras as the key to Krishna-consciousness, which is having a personal relationship with Krishna. I think that avoiding the association with the hippies and Beatles would allow ISKCON to present Krishna as the master disciple of Jesus, and thereby win over conservative Christians in Middle America. Bringing hippies and conservative, staid folks would give ISKCON far more credibility and enable it to enter the mainstream.

Conservative can be a broad term, since American conservatism is what it gets conflated into. Indians have a different definition of conservatism, they don't get hard thinking about conquering people like Americans and Europeans do, which is why Christianity filled that role for a warrior religion back in the Roman Empire.

I would like a fictional scenario where Christians in the West are knocked down a couple of pegs, and I think ISKCON is more liberal than your run of the mill Baptists, Anglicans or Calvinists. There's no eternal damnation in any Hindu belief system, you reincarnate until Moksha is achieved.

 

[pricklyBear]

Conservative can be a broad term, since American conservatism is what it gets conflated into. Indians have a different definition of conservatism, they don't get hard thinking about conquering people like Americans and Europeans do, which is why Christianity filled that role for a warrior religion back in the Roman Empire.

I would like a fictional scenario where Christians in the West are knocked down a couple of pegs, and I think ISKCON is more liberal than your run of the mill Baptists, Anglicans or Calvinists. There's no eternal damnation in any Hindu belief system, you reincarnate until Moksha is achieved.

Now why do you view Christianity as a warrior religion when initially it spread peacefully? Islam probably fits that bill better bc it reached new lands at first through conquest, then trade and cultural exchange.

 

[SludgeSlurpee]

Now why do you view Christianity as a warrior religion when initially it spread peacefully? Islam probably fits that bill better bc it reached new lands at first through conquest, then trade and cultural exchange.

I wouldn't call it a peaceful rise, if you're referring to the Gnostics who initially started it, they were overshadowed by the Roman state essentially watering it down for the masses. Islam though never started peaceful or had an underground, Sufism came centuries later when Caliphates were establishing their dominance during the crusades.

 

[NorCalifornio]

I think that avoiding the association with the hippies and Beatles would allow ISKCON to present Krishna as the master disciple of Jesus, and thereby win over conservative Christians in Middle America. Bringing hippies and conservative, staid folks would give ISKCON far more credibility and enable it to enter the mainstream.

What do you mean by "win over"? Are you saying that ISKCON could successfully convert conservative Christians this way, or just win their approval?

Either way, if you think the average Evangelical pastor would take kindly to the assertion that a well-known Hindu god is a disciple of Jesus, I don't think you're too familiar with American Evangelicalism.

 

[SludgeSlurpee]

What do you mean by "win over"? Are you saying that ISKCON could successfully convert conservative Christians this way, or just win their approval?

Either way, if you think the average Evangelical pastor would take kindly to the assertion that a well-known Hindu god is a disciple of Jesus, I don't think you're too familiar with American Evangelicalism.

I'm very familiar with how extreme American evangelicals are, they did after all take over the US government easily after the revolutionary war ended. Christians have been violating separation of church and state every day for over 200 years. ISKCON hasn't committed any treasonous act such as that, they're just annoying sometimes, they have no intention of meddling in our legal system or changing laws in their favor.

 

[Thisisnotausername]

I wondered how culture and government would have changed if Prabhupada's movement grew at a significant rate. I would imagine a reasonable percentage for 60+ years would be somewhere round 30% of Americans are of the Vaishnava westernized ISKCON religion as a result of Prabhupada living slightly longer than dying at 69.

ISKCON would count itself lucky to be the religion of one or two percent of the US population by the present day, comparable to other small US religious traditions like Mormonism, Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam. For them to grow to thirty percent is basically impossible--they have no grounding in existing American religious traditions, no outside patronage to prop up their missionary efforts (something which Christianity greatly benefited from in other countries during the same time period), and as you have shown yourself to be keenly aware, the Christian religious establishment enjoys a strong position which any would-be competitor would find it very hard to put a serious dent in. If you're going to seriously argue that anything resembling this level of growth is plausible, you're going to need a much better POD than "what if hippies, the only Westerners who were seriously interested in ISKCON IOTL, weren't interested?"

I would like a fictional scenario where Christians in the West are knocked down a couple of pegs, and I think ISKCON is more liberal than your run of the mill Baptists, Anglicans or Calvinists.

If you want to knock Christianity in the West down a peg, your best bet is to try to weaken the Christian establishment more generally and let other competitors (including atheism and irreligion, Christianity's most successful "rivals" in the West IOTL) fill the void, not to try and funnel everything into a single religion that never grew outside of a tiny niche in the West IOTL. (I also find the idea that your average Episcopalian is more conservative than your typical Hare Krishna dubious, but that's a separate issue.)

Islam though never started peaceful or had an underground

The earliest Muslims were literally forced to flee their home city due to persecution by the authorities. Their underground phase may have been short, but it was certainly there.

ISKCON hasn't committed any treasonous act such as that, they're just annoying sometimes, they have no intention of meddling in our legal system or changing laws in their favor.

It is very easy to support a strong separation of church and state and religions not meddling with laws when you're a tiny religious minority with no power. If 30% of Americans were Hare Krishnas, I expect a lot of them would start to feel differently, especially in areas where they formed a majority.

 

[Johnrankins]

ISKCON would count itself lucky to be the religion of one or two percent of the US population by the present day, comparable to other small US religious traditions like Mormonism, Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam. For them to grow to thirty percent is basically impossible--they have no grounding in existing American religious traditions, no outside patronage to prop up their missionary efforts (something which Christianity greatly benefited from during the same time period), and as you have shown yourself to be keenly aware, the Christian religious establishment enjoys a strong position which any would-be competitor would find it very hard to put a serious dent in. If you're going to seriously argue that anything resembling this level of growth is plausible, you're going to need a much better POD than "what if hippies, the only Westerners who were seriously interested in ISKCON IOTL, weren't interested?"

If you want to knock Christianity in the West down a peg, your best bet is to try to weaken the Christian establishment more generally and let other competitors (including atheism and irreligion, Christianity's most successful "rivals" in the West IOTL) fill the void, not to try and funnel everything into a single religion that never grew outside of a tiny niche in the West IOTL. (I also find the idea that your average Episcopalian is more conservative than your typical Hare Krishna dubious, but that's a separate issue.)

The earliest Muslims were literally forced to flee their home city due to persecution by the authorities. Their underground phase may have been short, but it was certainly there.

It is very easy to support a strong separation of church and state and religions not meddling with laws when you're a tiny religious minority with no power. If 30% of Americans were Hare Krishnas, I expect a lot of them would start to feel differently, especially in areas where they formed a majority.

Yeah, I don't see how ISKCON could be anything but a small minority that quickly absent ASB mind control ,