It’s well documented that Prabhupada wanted all his disciples and followers to write regularly. This includes both men and women. Disciples of both genders were encouraged to write regularly about Krsna Consciousness and try to publish these articles not only in the Back to Godhead magazine and internal publications of our movement but also in newspapers and other media. When we take into the current context this obviously includes the internet and social media.

Of course, the problem when devotees start to write is that often the false ego grows a little and we start to fight. The ones who were around during the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s can surely remember extremely long debates and battles of quotes going on on PAMHO, Dandavats, and other lists and forums. Such discussions created lots of disagreements, splits, and issues that remain unresolved. As a result, many of the devotees who went through it started recommending devotees to stop writing about any potentially polemic topics (which means basically anything) and just keep their heads down to avoid problems. This is an understandable reaction to past problems, but it’s not a viable long-term solution. If we stop using our brains for fear of hurting the sensibilities of others, our movement will not have much of a future.

This brings us back to the initial point. Prabhupada wanted us to not just practice Krsna Consciousness for ourselves, but learn to explain it to others. Yes, we should write and we should debate, Prabhupada expected this from us, we just need to learn from past mistakes and learn to do it in a respectful and civilized way, that’s all.

One of the problems we face in our movement is the shortage of young, energetic, and talented people who can do things and use their talents to spread Krsna Consciousness. One reason for that is of course that it’s not so easy to find talented people willing to dedicate their lives to Krsna, a problem that was also identified by Srila Prabhupada at his time. Another reason is that for decades we have been facing a “brain drain” in our movement, with young and talented devotees going to other groups, or simply starting their own projects outside.

There are different possible causes for it. One reason is simply that many prefer to act independently. This is a natural human characteristic, and usually, the more materially intelligent a person is, the more he or she will be inclined to it. This can however be counterbalanced by a healthy relationship with the spiritual master. If a disciple has a relationship of trust and gratitude to the spiritual master, he or she may be able to continue acting under him despite having other possibilities, just like many talented disciples of Srila Prabhupada did and are still doing up to the end. This requires, however, a sufficient number of qualified spiritual masters, which is also a limiting factor since the number of pure devotees available to take this role is always limited.

Another point is that having a spiritual institution implies having rules and fences, which is always a little discouraging to creative and intelligent people. Such rules and fences can’t be completely eliminated, but it helps when they are kept down to the essentials. Over time, new laws and rules tend to be established, and they pile up on top of the previous ones, creating a maze that gradually becomes oppressive. Such an excessive load of rules can create stagnation. It’s important to at times sit down and discuss what the priorities are and what is really important or not.

A third problem however is that often talented devotees are just put down without good reason, just because the persons in charge are not interested enough to take a look into it and try to understand the possibilities. There are many possible legitimate reasons for it (managers may be just too busy, for example), but frequently it comes down to a negative trait that can be observed in many other types of organizations, which is excessive bureaucratization. When too many managerial layers are added, it becomes increasingly difficult to do anything. Over time, creative people tend to leave, and we end up just with the people who are happy with the status quo. When this happens, managers may become more concerned about just staying out of trouble, and may thus start seeing any kind of innovation as just another potential source of headache.

Some say that we are what we eat. In one sense that’s true since our bodies are formed by a combination of different material elements that come from the food we eat, but of course, it’s only valid to the extent we consider ourselves as the body. As devotees we understand we are not the body, but the soul inside the body.

However, “we are what we eat” also applies to a more subtle level that is more directly relevant to us. “We are what we eat” also applies to the different types of information we absorb, which form our consciousness. Although our original consciousness is to be an eternal servant of Krsna, this original consciousness is now covered. Although we still have it somewhere deep inside, it is currently practically lost for us. The consciousness we have now is a combination of the material mind, intelligence, false ego, and so on.

The false ego is composed of different misconceptions we have, such as “I’m a man”, “I’m a woman”, “I’m black”, “I’m white”, “I’m Indian”, “I’m American” and so on, while the material mind is a storage for all kinds of desires, memories, frustrations, etc. that surface from time to time. This combination of misconceptions and material desires determines how we are going to act. If I think I’m an American, for example, I will tend to identify with a certain culture, a certain way of life, it will influence my view of other people and other places, will influence the way I see life and see the world, etc. The desires stored in the mind in turn will give me the impetus to work in different directions, trying to obtain different things, using the material intelligence as a tool to move things around and obtain what I want. All these different desires, misconceptions, and the different types of work I become involved with make it hard for me to reconnect with my original, eternal identity as a servant of Krsna. That’s how we end up imprisoned for so many millions of lives in this material world.

One quality that devotees have to develop nowadays in order to be able to peacefully live inside our spiritual society is the capacity to hear different opinions without becoming disturbed or bewildered. Looks straightforward, but it’s actually much harder than it seems.

Nowadays, in general society, we can see that many are capable of something like that. They talk with everyone, hear everything, and don’t become disturbed by different opinions. However, this usually doesn’t come from being genuinely tolerant, but just from believing that everyone can have his own truth. This is a form of impersonalism, which comes from the idea that truth is relative, and thus there is ultimately no truth. People can just live the way they want and do whatever makes them happy.

This doesn’t work for devotees, since we understand that the world doesn’t work like that. There is right and wrong, there is higher and lower. We are supposed to do certain things and avoid certain things. It’s not just a matter of each one having his or her own truth. Certain things, like animal killing and promiscuous sex, are intrinsically wrong and should be avoided by all sane people.

Once we start accepting that it is indeed right and wrong and it’s not just a matter of doing whatever feels good, we automatically start having some trouble dealing with opposite opinions, which can create intolerance, fanaticism, and other problems. How to reconcile both things?

Once, a group of Mayavadis connected with an important university in India challenged Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura for a debate on the Vedas. Mayavadis are well known for having an impersonal interpretation of the sastras, defending that the absolute truth is ultimately impersonal, and all forms and variety exist only under the influence of Maya, or illusion. Even the forms of Lord Vishnu and different avatars are interpreted by the Mayavadis as being composed of matter and performing their activities under the influence of the three modes. In other words, even when the Supreme Brahman appears in this world, He does it under the influence of Maya. That’s why we call them Mayavadis because their philosophy incorrectly concludes that Maya is greater than God. Their philosophy is based on the Sariraka-bhasya, the indirect commentary on the Vedanta Sutra written by Srila Sankaracarya.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura on the other hand was famous for teaching the theistic Vaishnava interpretation of the sastras, which is based chiefly on the Srimad Bhagavatam. When challenged by this group he nonchalantly answered that he was ready to debate with them. They had just to set a date and time.

Just like the other Puranas, the Srimad Bhagavatam is composed of dialogues of great personalities. The original dialogue narrated in the book is the conversation between Sukadeva Goswami and Maharaja Pariksit, which is repeated with a few additions by Suta Goswami to the sages in Naimisharanya. This dialogue is in turn repeated to us by Srila Vyasadeva, who compiled the book.

Suta Goswami starts his discourse to the sages by speaking directly, describing the different incarnations of Krsna, the story of Vyasadeva being inspired by Narada Muni to write the Srimad Bhagavatam and so on, up to the decision of Maharaja Pariksit of fasting until death after being cursed by Srngi and his meeting with Sukadeva Goswami. From the start of the second canto, Suta Goswami starts repeating the conversation between Sukadeva Goswami and Maharaja Pariksit. This adds another level into dialogue, since now we have Suta Goswami repeating verses spoken by Sukadeva Goswami to Maharaja Pariksit. In the third canto, another layer is introduced: Sukadeva Goswami starts to narrate the conversation between Vidhura and Maytreya, and therefore we have Sukadeva Goswami repeating verses spoken by Maytreya, and Suta Goswami repeating everything to the sages in Naimisharanya. This goes on up to the end of the fourth canto. Maitreya in his turn also quotes from other conversations, and thus we have at some points five of six levels of dialog one on top of the other. Keeping track of all these different dialogues can be quite a challenge.

Let’s try to better understand the different dialogs presented in the Srimad Bhagavatam:

It’s quite common for religious people to fall into fanaticism or to become blind followers. This is a problem that can be noticed in many traditions. We also had our own share of fanaticism in our movement, and at times devotees were told to blindly follow spiritual authorities, which can cause serious problems. Even today, this mood of teaching new devotees to be fanatical and follow blindly can still be found in some places.

How does it work? It’s usually based on the idea that a particular leader is teaching according to the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, and thus by following him one is automatically following Prabhupada. However, not many bother to check what Prabhupada had to say about it, and the fact is that Prabhupada was not in favor of blindly following. See for example this passage from A Second Chance (chapter 14):

“The Viṣṇudūtas, like all genuine servants of God, understood everything according to logic and reason. The instructions of Kṛṣṇa are not meaningless dogma. Religion often gives rise to dogmatism, but the author of Śrī Caitanya-caritāmṛta, Śrīla Kṛṣṇadāsa Kavirāja, urges us to try to understand Lord Caitanya and the philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness according to logic. In other words, do not follow blindly, on the basis of sentiment alone. One who fails to apply logic can easily be misled by unscrupulous persons.”

As Srila Prabhupada said in a famous lecture, there are no barriers in terms of how fast one can advance in Krsna Consciousness. One who is exceptionally sincere can become pure even in a single moment. One just has to chant the holy names one time with a pure heart, that’s all that it takes.

However, most of us are not ready for such a quick evolution and thus we often have to practice for several lives to be able to attain perfection. On his Jaiva Dharma, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura tells stories of several personalities on different stages of spiritual evolution: some still on a sinful platform, others on a pious platform, and a few on a truly spiritual platform. Souls can pass through all these different platforms over a sequence of lives, going from some sinful offender, like Vani-Madhava, all the way to someone who starts from an almost pure platform, like Vaishnava Dasa.

For most of us, that’s the progression: we start from a sinful platform, and the first step is to accept the rules and regulations of spiritual life and gradually, through practice, purify our hearts from the previous contamination. That’s the stage of a Kanista-Adhikari devotee, who struggles to follow the basic principles of spiritual life.

There are cases of entire families who adopted Krsna Consciousness. In most cases, everything starts with one becoming a devotee and then gradually presenting Krsna Consciousness to the others. If one becomes a serious and mature devotee, and at the same time maintains his ties with other family members, it’s natural that gradually, by association, the others also start to become favorable to Krsna Consciousness, and some will end up becoming devotees.

The critical point here is maturity. If one is not mature, he will act in fanatical ways and thus make his family members antagonistic to the whole thing. They will think he or she became a fanatic and blame Krsna Consciousness for that. Naturally, they will not want anything to do with it and will do everything possible to bring the devotee back to “normal”. The result is that the whole family will become antagonistic, and without the support of the family the devotee will face many difficulties in life, and as a result may also not remain in Krsna Consciousness. Even if he manages to stay on the spiritual path, this will not be an ideal situation.

We can practically see that we sometimes propagate this kind of fanatic behavior, telling people to abandon everything and just “surrender to Krsna”, without taking into account their inclination or current situation. Sometimes we do this out of immaturity, without really understanding what the Bhagavad-Gita teaches, but in other situations, the problem may be that we are just interested in recruiting members and we don’t really care much about people. This is of course a more serious problem and can create very negative repercussions.