In its early days, the Hare Krishna movement (ISKCON) was considered by its members to be an ideal micro-society that, once developed, would replace the existing “materialistic” social structure. Although this aspiration now appears “utopic” even to most of the membership, it is still useful as a model in which the accuracy of certain new social theories related to identity and knowledge can be tested: in particular, the phenomenon known as “thought style” finds a striking application in the approach that both institutional and individual ISKCON members have taken to the world. The Hare Krishna movement has undergone several important changes in a relatively brief history, and these are all well documented. In this article the author illuminates the various transformations of Hare Krishna thought style, and the complex dynamics that have accompanied them.

By reconsidering the epistemic implications underlying the marginal status to which the materials produced by South Asian exponents of various forms of 'dissenting' or 'anti-traditional' intellectual activity have been consigned, in this essay I propose revisiting our understanding of why many South Asian traditions that do not adhere to a dominant doxa have been omitted or given a permanent status of subordination. From this perspective I here argue the paucity of textual materials produced by the 'dissenters' -which now survive only in fragments -is the most striking proof that over the centuries these elements have not been considered as what they really are.

Religious institutions created by the extraordinary efforts of a single founder—like the one examined in this essay—try hard to assure the preservation of charisma, and to guarantee its Weberian “routinization”. But this attempt does not always succeed, and quite often what originally looks like the “power of mysticism”, allowing resolute individual and social transformations, in the gradual collective evolution of a religious field turns to crystallization, stratification, bureaucratization, quickly becoming a “mysticism of power” and losing its former elasticity, dynamism and persuasive capacity.

No abstract

No abstract