Q: I read your article on preaching here. Preaching is bringing so many to Krishna consciousness. Why are you opposed to it?
A: If you read the article, you should already know the śāstric arguments. Beyond that, there are other serious ethical issues also.
Q: What are the ethical issues?
A: The problem is that preachers wish to convert everyone in the world- irrespective of their background or religion – and bring them to the preacher’s institution. Then they want to cut off these same people from any information or knowledge from outside the institution. This, in my view, is unethical.
Q: How is it unethical?
A: You claim the right to convert anyone. But once someone converts, you deny them the same right to hear from others. You treat them as your property, bound to obey you. If they want to leave, you criticize and attack them, making life miserable. This is not even basic human decency. It is completely unethical.
Q: But they are coming to Krishna consciousness.
A: If something is done by unethical means, then the result will be undesirable. Lying and unethical behavior is the behavior of asuras. Bhagavān says:
pravṛttiṁ ca nivṛttiṁ ca janā na vidur āsurāḥ | na śaucaṁ nāpi cācāro na satyaṁ teṣu vidyate ||
People of ungodly nature do not know what is appropriate action and what is to be avoided. Thus, in them there exists neither purity, nor virtuous conduct, nor truthfulness.
Preaching often takes the form of manipulation. Unsuspecting college students are pressured in their hostels, against college rules. They are fed, flattered, and persuaded to start preaching to others. Many drop out. When the college intervenes, the preachers move on, but their job of getting converts is done. Does the end justify such means?
Q: If the preaching is ethical, then?
A: That depends on who is doing it. A siddha does not manipulate. He teaches only when asked and never seeks to control, even after giving dīkṣā. In my opinion, the current culture of “preaching” is a disservice to Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism.
Show me one example in the Bhāgavata of someone preaching. What you will find instead are dialogues—questions asked freely, answered by realized sages such as Śukadeva Gosvāmi, Vyāsa, Nārada, or the Yogendras. And after speaking, they move on. They do not police or monitor the student.
In contrast, modern preaching relies on theatrics and manipulation. Without deep practice, authentic knowledge and experience, preaching is basically a performance that seeks followers. The fruit of such actions is accordingly shallow. Given that the preacher’s own understanding of śāstra is distorted, as revealed by misguided manipulative behaviors, how can converts hope to gain authentic knowledge of bhakti?
Q: The fact remains that Bhagavān’s name is being chanted by millions all over the world.
A: The question is not how many are chanting, but whether the chanting has attracted Bhagavān’s grace. Because only then can one receive bhāva, which is the fruit of chanting.
When chanting is performed in a culture of manipulation, deception, or ambition for followers, how can it invoke Bhagavān’s grace? Instead of bhāva, the result is frustration. I know many who gave their entire lives to “preaching,” only to find themselves abandoned in old age. A human being is not a commodity to be used and discarded. Each person’s life story matters.
This is why numbers can be misleading. If numbers alone proved authenticity, then every large church or sect or religion — Mormons, Jehovah’s witnesses, Mega churches — would be spiritually superior. But bhakti was never about crowds. It is about depth of experience, quality of knowledge, and transformation of the heart. It is about understanding Bhagavān’s heart and moulding our life accordingly.
Q: But dont we need sat-sanga for bhakti?
A: Yes we do. The word ‘sat’ in sat-sanga means a siddha, who is one’s own guru. See this article for more. It does not mean crowds.
Leave a Reply