When some senior leaders publicly criticize younger people who are doing pre-devotional outreach, how can we see such unpleasant situations constructively?

How to Respond When Pre-devotional Outreach is Publicly Criticized by Senior Devotees

When some highly respected or senior devotees publicly criticize those engaged in pre-devotional outreach, it often creates confusion—especially among newer or younger devotees. Once newcomers develop faith in Srila Prabhupada, they naturally want to be faithful to him. But when they see criticism coming from senior devotees, they may either become critical of the pre-devotional outreach efforts or get caught in polarization. How can we guide such devotees in a healthy, balanced way? I’d like to share three points.

1. Space for Conservatives and Liberals in Every Tradition

Every spiritual tradition typically has conservatives and liberals.

• Conservatives are primarily concerned with preserving the best of the past and staying connected with it through faithfulness.
• Liberals focus on adapting to the present and staying connected with it through resourcefulness.

A living tradition, like ours, exists at the intersection of past and present. We must remain connected to the past (through faithfulness) and also connected to the present (through resourcefulness).

Srila Prabhupada exemplified both. He appreciated and encouraged innovation from his disciples. For example, in A Servant of the Servant, Tamal Krishna Maharaj shares how Prabhupada praised creative festival ideas, book distribution strategies, etc., saying, “Because you are sincerely trying to serve Krishna, Krishna is giving you all these ideas,” and quoting Bhagavad-gita 10.10.

Prabhupada’s own actions—like launching the first Ratha-yatra in the West using a flatbed truck—were highly resourceful. Though different from the traditional Ratha-yatra, this innovation made the festival globally recognizable. So, Prabhupada was both deeply faithful and incredibly resourceful.

If conservatism goes too far, it can become disconnected from the present and reduce the tradition to a museum piece. If liberalism goes too far, it can become mere trend-following, with no grounding. Hence, every tradition benefits from the healthy interplay between the two.

2. Understanding Different Approaches Through “JAM”

When differences of opinion arise, I use the acronym JAM—Judgment, Ability, Motive—to navigate disagreements.

• At the most charitable level, we can attribute someone’s action to a judgment error. For example, if two devotees differ in estimating the number of guests for a festival and prasad gets wasted or falls short, it’s simply a miscalculation, not malice.
• A more hurtful level is to doubt someone’s ability: “You’re incapable, so you should be replaced.” That becomes personal.
• But the most damaging is to question someone’s motive: “You wanted this event to fail,” or “You’re just after popularity.” This leads to deep polarization and resentment.

If a devotee says, “I wouldn’t do outreach that way,” that could be seen as a difference in judgment. But if they say, “You just want to be popular,” that becomes a motive attack, which is much more harmful. It’s important to remember scriptural instructions like apaiśunam (aversion to fault-finding) and anya-nindā-śūnyam (freedom from the tendency to criticize others).

We cannot know someone’s motives. Perhaps a liberal devotee genuinely believes that pre-devotional outreach is a way to bring people one step closer to Krishna. Similarly, a conservative critic may be motivated not by envy but by concern. So, the key is to give each other the benefit of the doubt and engage in respectful dialogue, not public condemnation.

3. Find Like-Minded Association and Co-exist

Each of us has a particular nature, and it’s important to find like-minded association that nourishes our faith and service. Cooperation doesn’t always mean working side-by-side. Sometimes, “cooperate” can mean “co-operate”: I operate here, you operate there.” Live and let live.

If liberals start outright condemning conservatives as out of touch or damaging, or if conservatives label liberal outreach efforts as deviations or offenses, both attitudes become divisive. Instead, we can recognize different moods within one mission.

Srila Prabhupada said he built a house in which the whole world can live. That house is big enough for both conservatives and liberals—even if they can’t live in the same room. While the mission of Srila Prabhupada was one—to raise people’s consciousness—he had many moods.

In the founding purposes of ISKCON, Krishna and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu are mentioned in only one point. Other purposes are broad: to propagate spiritual knowledge, promote cultural values, publish books and magazines, etc. These broader purposes also represent Prabhupada’s vision and were never retracted or modified.

Historical and Scriptural Precedents

Even in ISKCON’s early days, this conservative-liberal dynamic was present. New York was relatively conservative; San Francisco, led by adventurous devotees like Shyamasundar Prabhu and Mukunda Maharaj, was more liberal. Yet Prabhupada accepted service from both.

Going further back, in Gaudiya history, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was more conservative, while Nityananda Prabhu was more liberal—even going to taverns and associating with outcastes. Mahaprabhu insisted on eating only in brahmana homes; Nityananda had no such concerns. That balance is literally present on our altars today.

So, both approaches have scriptural and historical precedent. The important thing is to avoid polarization and recognize that different services attract different devotees. The key is respectful dialogue, sincere intention, and willingness to learn from one another.

Conclusion

To summarize:

• There is room within Prabhupada’s house for both conservative and liberal approaches.
• Disagreements should be seen first as differences in judgment, not as flaws in ability or motives.
• We should seek like-minded association and embrace co-existence, not condemnation.

Let us all be faithful in our own ways while remaining respectful of others who serve Krishna differently. Unity in diversity is not just a slogan—it is a necessity for a global movement founded on compassion, wisdom, and Krishna consciousness.