As we can’t know for sure what are principles and what details, why not just follow the tradition as it is, without even attempting to change anything?

Question on the Conflict Between Conservatives and Liberals: What Should Change – Details or Principles?

This is a crucial question: how do we differentiate between details and principles? Making this distinction requires not only deep maturity and evolution of consciousness but also, at times, consultation with other evolved souls. Given that we all have four inherent defects, it’s a very delicate and complex endeavor. One might then ask: why even attempt to change anything at all?

Indeed, sometimes we must adjust according to time, place, and circumstance. But what would be the downside of not adjusting? Of simply not attempting change? At first glance, that might seem to be the safer option.

However, when we insist, “Don’t adapt, don’t change anything,” what exactly are we referring to? Consider this at the most basic level: even language changes. It’s not just that different regions speak different languages, but the same language evolves over time.

For example, during Srila Prabhupada’s time, the word cult had a relatively neutral or even positive connotation, and it was used accordingly. Today, the word carries negative implications, so we’ve stopped using it. Similarly, the word preaching was commonly used by Prabhupada, but now many recognize that it may sound condescending or aggressive. So, we may choose alternative expressions.

Every act of translation is also an interpretation. A single Sanskrit word may be translated as anger, rage, fury, indignation, irritation, and so on—each having its own nuance. The translator’s choice affects how the meaning is perceived. Some translations are obviously wrong—e.g., translating krodha (anger) as calmness. But even among reasonable options, there will always be a range of interpretations, and one’s sense of which is more precise may be subjective.

So, it’s not just about language. The moment we interact with the world, variation becomes inevitable. Take the pandemic: we moved our classes online. There’s no record of Srila Prabhupada giving a talk through Zoom or even via a phone call. He mostly communicated through physical mail, not email. Now, who uses physical mail for correspondence?

So, if we were to “follow Prabhupada exactly,” would that mean we must use only physical mail? Clearly, that’s impractical.

We can categorize the ways in which we interact within the tradition—such as correspondence among devotees, communication with the public, etc.—and we’ll see that exact replication is not possible. Technological advancement demands adaptation. Had we not embraced virtual tools, the movement could have ground to a halt during the pandemic. The temples may have closed physically, but the movement carried on—because we adapted.

Interestingly, even some of the most conservative voices today use modern means (like the internet) to strongly argue that “we should never change anything.” Yet the very tools they use were never employed by Srila Prabhupada. So, they’re already changing something—whether or not they admit it.

We might argue that technology is mundane, and therefore flexible. Fine. But practicing bhakti in this material world inevitably involves engaging with others—fellow practitioners, teachers, and the Divine—through worldly means. So we must ask: what aspects of tradition are unchangeable, and which are flexible?

Even determining this requires intelligence and perspective. Srila Prabhupada emphasized this when he said we must see things in their proper context. Not changing is not an option—because change is the nature of this world.

Even in his own usage of English, Srila Prabhupada evolved. His early Back to Godhead articles and his later purports use different levels of vocabulary. Similarly, he set different expectations for different groups: his Western disciples living in temples were expected to follow strict standards, while Indian life members were given flexibility and a more general connection to Krishna consciousness.

Most of today’s members are in a new category altogether: not full-time temple residents, nor loosely affiliated life members, but serious practitioners living outside the temples. This is a demographic that barely existed during Srila Prabhupada’s time. So, how do we train and serve this group? We must enter uncharted waters to do so.

We might say, “What Prabhupada gave at initiation shouldn’t be changed.” That makes sense. But what about those who aren’t ready for initiation? Should we just reject them? Or should we create a space for them—just as Prabhupada did with life members?

There are also social issues Prabhupada did not address in depth—like homosexuality. While he made certain strong statements, his actions were often more inclusive. This shows that even if we reduce our allegiance to one acharya, that acharya may not always be monolithic in teaching and application.

Consider the issue of women in devotional service. Prabhupada often emphasized traditional roles. Yet he also engaged women in services that defied traditional expectations—such as distributing books alone, which would be almost unthinkable in traditional society.

So, when we say “Don’t change anything,” do we follow Prabhupada’s words or his actions? Those who insist on “no change” often choose aspects that align with their own preferences or conditioning. Their idea of faithful following may, consciously or unconsciously, become a means of control, of claiming exclusive authority, or demanding others’ submission under the guise of fidelity to the tradition.

Yes, we all have four defects, but we still function in the material world. Our defects don’t paralyze us. And since spiritual life is also practiced in the material world, navigating change is inevitable.

The key is this: core principles cannot be compromised. But change, when approached with intelligence, caution, and sincerity, can help us better serve the purpose of the tradition—bringing people closer to Krishna and elevating consciousness.

We should study Srila Prabhupada’s example, observe how other empowered teachers have dealt with change, and make decisions accordingly.