Should the problems in following authority be discussed only privately and not publicly?

Podcast:

Disclaimer: This transcript was generated using AI and may contain occasional errors or inaccuracies.

Summary

Open discussions about the dangers of blindly following authority are essential for a healthy spiritual community, provided they are balanced with proper context and caution.

• The Risk of Misuse: While discussing abuses of authority can sometimes lead individuals to justify rejecting authority altogether, avoiding the topic entirely creates a suffocating environment for those suffering under harsh leadership.

• Historical Context of ISKCON: Past abuses occurred because followers were told unquestioning obedience was the only path to advancement, yet Srila Prabhupada intentionally avoided appointing a single successor to ensure devotees had alternative places to practice.

• Fostering Independent Thought: Srila Prabhupada wanted individuals to be thoughtfully independent, which inherently involves evaluating whether instructions are right rather than blindly obeying.

• The “Big House” Concept: ISKCON functions as a large house with many rooms and guides; if an authority is overly demanding, devotees should feel safe seeking out other balanced spaces within the movement to sustain their practice.

• Preventing Spiritual Burnout: Many people abandon Krishna consciousness after encountering rigid, hardline versions of the practice, highlighting the need for compassionate, comfortable, and sustainable spiritual growth (“at your place, at your pace, access Krishna’s grace”).

• Addressing Taboos Constructively: The potential for a topic to be misused or misconstrued does not mean it should be completely silenced; rather, it requires careful nuance, buffering, and responsible mentorship.

Full Transcription

Consciousness Question Should the problems with blindly obeying authority not be discussed in public and better be discussed in private because the problems with not obeying authority are much bigger and that is the overall trend of society and the problems with obeying authority which are comparatively much smaller can if discussed publicly can lead to people justifying that that they shouldn’t obey authority Answer Yes, that danger is definitely there but in general finding the middle between extremes is always a challenge and within our movement’s mainstream discourse the focus has always been on obeying authority and while the scriptures are candid about how even authorities can go wrong but then that is explained by saying that though they are not devotees so Shukracharya was not a devotee and thus he went wrong Devotee is a very broad term and sometimes if somebody is not a pure devotee then the authorities can also make mistakes and that also needs to be discussed some place or the other so if that becomes the mainstream discourse then definitely it is going to be a problem but some place where it is discussed will give people who are suffering from that problem a breathing space otherwise they will feel suffocated and even for something to be discussed privately there has to be some reflection by those who are more experienced and those who have encountered such situations and their reflections can become forums for can become sources for private discussions on these topics also and the danger in rejecting authority completely by saying that the authority is exploitative or corrupt or unqualified or incompetent or whatever is very much there given the leftist propaganda of today which constantly challenges authority but ends up establishing the leftist authorities as the unquestionable authorities that is there, no doubt and that has to be acknowledged but we have to also look at the ground reality if we look at the more we know or are familiar with the history of ISKCON we will know that there have been distressing sometimes horrifying abuses of authority and no recourse available because for those who were suffering under such authorities because they were told that following authority is the only way to advance in Krishna consciousness so what do we want? Do we want obedience to authority or do we want to spread Krishna consciousness? Shri Prabhupada himself did not install a single authority after he departed because among many reasons one was that if some devotees could not get along with some authority, they could always find some other place within the movement where they could continue their spiritual practices if there had been one authority then it would have been just one, my way or the highway whenever such discussions are done where the dangers in following authority are being discussed if that is done with proper contextualization first the principle is emphasized and also then with proper buffering, contextualization caution, caveats the points about the dangers in blindly following authority are also discussed that’s important and it’s not that this is something which Shri Prabhupada also said that he wanted people to be independently thoughtful and that means that sometimes it involves questioning what is the authority saying whether it is right or not openly discussing it is vital otherwise the big danger is people will equate that there is no room within Krishna consciousness for questioning authority Prabhupada did not start the international society for obeying your authority started the international society for Krishna consciousness we have many shiksha gurus we have many authorities and many guides Prabhupada has built a house big enough so that if we can’t stay in one room where one authority can’t get along the important thing is we can still go to some other room and continue the practice of our Krishna consciousness might this result in if we reject all authority entirely it will be difficult for us to find any place in any room in the big house of Krishna consciousness but there could be some authorities who are far more demanding and there are authorities who are less demanding during my travels I have often met people whom I call as victims of our preaching the people who were introduced to a very hardline version of Krishna consciousness and they were taught that this alone is Krishna consciousness and because of that they gave up Krishna consciousness this is not for me and later on they met other devotees or they who were more balanced maybe less one zero kind I don’t understand and it is there they saw this new face of Krishna consciousness and they found it more comfortable to practice Krishna consciousness at that level so all people are on my path what does that mean one meaning is that whatever be one’s level of consciousness and one’s level of commitment there is a place in Krishna consciousness for that person so that means from your place at your pace access Krishna’s grace that is broadly Krishna’s inclusive mood and we need to make sure that this inclusive mood is made accessible is at least devotees are made aware of that and then they can keep practicing bhakti in a way that is comfortably sustainable for them everybody has to stretch in stretch but just like in yoga the body needs to be stretched comfortably similarly devotees need authorities who will stretch them comfortably not uncomfortably unbearably to the breaking point and when somebody has an authority like that they need to know that there is a way to practice Krishna consciousness without having to only be with such an authority so that’s the purpose why these things are discussed and I agree that they should not be discussed in a way that leads to people rejecting the principle for being authority itself if somebody wants to do that they can find justification even in the scripture for that so we can’t really help those who don’t want to be helped those who want to use the philosophy as an excuse for for keeping Krishna at a distance then the philosophy will provide them that also they will find somewhere something some quote somewhere just because some subjects discussion can be misused doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t discuss that subject at all