If those who chant a lot face material problems, are they chanting too much

Can There Be Such a Thing as “Too Much” Chanting?

If someone chants at the expense of their material stability or their studies — for example, while pursuing a degree — is that a loss?

From the absolute perspective, there is ultimately no material stability in this world. And even if one doesn’t acquire one degree, they might acquire another. The benefits of chanting the holy name are eternal. So shouldn’t we encourage devotees to chant more, not less?

Yes — in principle. A devotee’s life is meant to constantly glorify the Lord.

However, kirtan can take various forms. We also need to consider our particular social position and the responsibilities that come with it, so we can serve Krishna effectively. Kirtan is not limited to the utterance of the holy names; it includes any form of glorification of the Lord.

For example, even in his final days, Srila Prabhupada was deeply enlivened when discussing with his scientific disciple Dr. T. D. Singh (later Bhaktisvarupa Damodara Swami) how to counter atheistic ideologies and establish the glory of God. When someone suggested having Krishna-kirtan, Prabhupada replied, “So what do you think we are doing now?” — indicating that discussing Krishna’s glories philosophically is also Krishna-kirtan. He even asked, “Do you think we are going out to have illicit sex here?”

This shows that even the intellectual refutation of atheism is a form of kirtan when done in the service of Krishna. Srila Prabhupada expanded the semantic scope of sankirtan — not just to include congregational chanting in temples or on the streets, but also book distribution, which is why in most temples, the sankirtan department refers to the book distribution team, not the kirtaneers.

The ultimate purpose of every devotee’s life is to glorify Krishna and inspire others to develop a loving relationship with Him. That relationship is developed through various forms of devotional service — not only by chanting the holy names.

Let’s take an example: if someone is expected to give a class and instead they simply chant japa or perform kirtan, that’s not appropriate. Chanting is good. Kirtan is good. But if there is a time meant for speaking Krishna-katha and addressing questions, one must honor that role.

If someone is asked a difficult question in a public forum and instead of answering, they deflect by chanting kirtan, this might give the impression that devotees can’t answer tough questions and are using kirtan to escape the situation. Such an act, though externally devotional, can actually alienate people from Krishna.

So, contextual appropriateness is critical. Even the act of glorifying Krishna can become counterproductive if done out of context.

There is a famous pastime where Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakur appreciated an article simply because it had the word “Krishna” repeated many times. That illustrates the importance of keeping Krishna central. However, if we study his actual publications like The Harmonist, they contain not just repetitions of Krishna’s name but well-reasoned, philosophically deep articles on various topics. Srila Prabhupada followed the same standard — he wanted his disciples to write articulate and coherent arguments to present Krishna consciousness powerfully.

Once, when people criticized western devotees for chanting on the streets of Mumbai, calling them “jobless hippies,” Srila Prabhupada wrote strong, logical letters to the newspapers defending his disciples. He didn’t just write Hare Krishna repeatedly — he presented thoughtful rebuttals.

So the issue is not whether there is too much Harinama or too little. The real question is:

Are we glorifying Krishna in a way appropriate to our role and our context?

If someone is meant to give a talk or answer philosophical questions, they must do that — not replace it with singing or japa. Otherwise, one should simply become a kirtaniya and not take the seat meant for a speaker.

There’s a time for congregational kirtan, a time for private japa, a time for philosophical discussion, and a time for practical service. The nine limbs of bhakti are all essential, but one limb doesn’t replace the others. Preference for one form of service is fine — but one must also honor their role.

Take the example of Sukadeva Goswami. When Parikshit Maharaj asked about the ultimate purpose of life, Sukadeva Goswami didn’t just start a loud Hari-nama kirtan. He engaged in Krishna-kirtan by narrating pastimes and elaborating upon philosophical truths — Krishna-lila and Krishna-tattva — which are also kirtan.

Thus, Krishna-kirtan encompasses both the glorification of Krishna’s name and His message. So we must honestly ask ourselves:

Am I chanting extra rounds to glorify Krishna or to escape from worldly responsibilities?

From an absolute perspective, one might say it’s okay for a student to drop out of medical school to chant. But such choices often have long-term consequences — materially, socially, and even spiritually. That person may struggle with regret later due to financial instability, and people around them might see Hare Krishna devotees as escapists.

Srila Prabhupada himself received instruction from his spiritual master to preach. But Prabhupada responded, “I am married now and have responsibilities toward my family.” He honored those duties for years before taking full-time preaching. Though in humility he later referred to this delay as being in illusion, he still acted responsibly at the time.

So, if someone no longer wants to study or work in a particular field, that’s okay. But let them exit that responsibly, not by neglecting duties under the pretext of spiritual pursuit. Irresponsible behavior justified as devotion can alienate people from Krishna, rather than attract them.

Material stability may not be the ultimate goal, but to dismiss it casually can be naive. If we lived in war zones or under persecution, we’d realize the value of relative stability. Krishna Himself comes to establish dharma, which includes social order and stability, so that people can practice bhakti.

Certainly, in times of distress, one may take shelter of Krishna — and that can deepen bhakti. But constant disorder and distress are not conducive for growth; they reflect irresponsibility, not renunciation.

When citizens approached King Prithu saying they were starving, he didn’t just tell them to chant and forget their hunger. He honored his role as king and addressed their needs — thus glorifying Krishna through responsible action.

So, we need a more inclusive understanding of Krishna-kirtan and service to Krishna. It’s not just about chanting — it’s also about living in a way that reflects Krishna’s glory.

Rather than asking whether there is such a thing as too much glorification — which, in principle, there isn’t — we should ask:

Is my current way of glorifying Krishna appropriate to my role, my responsibility, and the situation at hand?

If yes — wonderful! If not — let’s realign accordingly. Chanting is always good. But if we choose to pursue chanting exclusively, let it be done consciously, under guidance, and after responsibly renouncing other duties — not by escaping from them.

Because if our kirtan is just a way to dodge life’s challenges, it may not lead to growth. As Krishna states in Bhagavad-gita 18.8 — one who renounces duties simply because they are troublesome does not attain the fruits of renunciation.

Ultimately, even Arjuna practiced archery with diligence and skill for years. And by using that skill in Krishna’s service, he glorified Krishna.

So, even if our current role doesn’t seem overtly devotional, we can avoid dishonoring Krishna by not acting irresponsibly. Irresponsibility can be more damaging than invisibility. One unwise act by a careless devotee can disillusion many people.

Bhaktivinoda Thakura is a shining example. While deeply absorbed in Krishna consciousness, he was also known for exceptional professional competence. Though he proclaimed there is nothing in the world except the holy name, when serving as a magistrate, he didn’t sit and chant aloud in court — he honored his role.

Thus, appropriate glorification of Krishna according to one’s role and disposition is the way forward — for our individual growth and for our collective credibility.