If someone finds our statements about other spiritual leaders unbearable, how can we connect with them?

Podcast:

If someone finds our statements about Shankaracharya difficult to accept and, because of that, they don’t want to continue, what should we do?

Well, the first thing is this: If we open the door for someone and they come halfway inside and then walk away, we should never slam the door on their face.

That means we shouldn’t say things like, “If you don’t accept Prabhupada’s authority” or “If you don’t accept the authority of the Vaishnavacharyas, you are doomed.” Don’t make it an issue of authority alone. People are not just driven by logic when it comes to worship or spirituality. They’ve often had experiences that are meaningful to them.

For example, I’ve been writing about sensitive and insensitive speech in the Gita over the past few days. Let me share one metaphor that helps explain this.

Imagine someone who is blind, sitting in the cold, wrapped in a thin sheet. We have a thick, warm comforter to offer them. But if we try to forcibly pull away their thin sheet, they won’t understand our intention. They’ll feel threatened and fight us. Instead, if we just wrap the warm comforter around them, and they feel the warmth, they’ll gradually let go of their sheet on their own.

Similarly, people follow certain spiritual paths because they’ve had some genuine experiences. Maybe they visited Sringeri Math, heard something, read something, or sang something that uplifted them. Even if it wasn’t pure devotion in a Gaudiya sense, they still experienced some inner peace, a reduction in passion or ignorance, and a touch of goodness or transcendence. That’s like their thin sheet — it gave them some comfort.

Yes, Krishna-bhakti offers far greater richness — but they may not perceive that right now. So, we don’t need to reject or minimize their experiences; we need to enrich them.

How? By giving them an experience of Krishna’s sweetness. This could be through kirtans, kindness, inviting them to a festival — things that don’t require intellectual confrontation, but instead allow them to connect at a devotional level. Let them experience Krishna, not just hear explanations about Krishna.

Once they have that experience — the “comforter” — the explanations will start to make sense later on.

Now, coming back to your point: maybe they read something critical about Shankaracharya, and it felt to them like we were yanking away their comforting sheet. They couldn’t digest it. Their response might be, “How dare you pull that away? I don’t want anything from you!”

But we’re not trying to take something from them; we’re trying to offer something much richer. The key is, right now, they’re not experiencing that richness. So don’t focus on debates or difficult philosophical issues — focus on devotional experiences.

Also, keep in mind that people aren’t just minds full of concepts; their hearts are involved. When someone is following a tradition, their emotions are connected to it — to their teachers, rituals, texts. If we just say, “That’s wrong, here’s the right version,” we’re ignoring that emotional investment.

Let’s use another metaphor. Imagine a surgeon wants to fix a misaligned bone — but forgets to give anesthesia. The surgery might be technically correct, but it will cause unbearable pain to the patient. Why? Because the surgeon sees the patient as a mechanical system to fix, not as a living being with consciousness.

Similarly, if we view people just as sets of wrong concepts to fix with logical arguments, we miss their deeper reality. Yes, there’s a time and place for philosophy. But not always. Sometimes, connection and care come first. When the person is ready, philosophy can follow.

So, to answer your question: no, I’m not saying you offended her. You may have spoken softly and respectfully. But even gentle statements about Shankaracharya — especially if they seem to downplay him — can feel threatening to someone who reveres him. It’s not just about what’s said, but how it’s received.

Now, our Gaudiya Vaishnava view might be: Shankaracharya came with one level of teaching, then Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, and finally Chaitanya Mahaprabhu gave the fullest revelation. That’s fine. But remember — every tradition presents its view as the highest. Advaita-vadis also explain history their way: Shankaracharya gave the highest truth, and later teachers had to dilute it when people couldn’t accept it.

So, yes, everyone reinterprets history according to their view.

In this situation, I’d suggest: try to gently revive the relationship. Don’t focus on philosophy. Just help them experience Krishna-bhakti in a personal and uplifting way. Leave it at that. If, in the future, they’re open to exploring further, that’s wonderful. Until then, let the experience speak for itself.