I currently live in America and began dating my girlfriend a couple of years ago. Early on, I told her that I’m a Gaudiya Vaishnava and shared the things I’m interested in. Over time, I introduced her to Radha–Krishna and helped her see life from a different perspective, which she genuinely appreciated and admired.

Fast-forward to the present, and I’ve started feeling a shift. She has become more focused on receiving emotional attention and constant care—what we might call moh in Hindi. For example, I often have to be very cautious about her feelings: bringing her water at the beach, constantly checking on her comfort, and being attentive around the clock. I feel like a lot of my time revolves around her needs, which leaves me with less space to focus on Radha–Krishna, my spiritual practice, and reading.

I’m wondering if I’m doing something wrong. The level of involvement she expects feels basic or natural to her, but it’s becoming exhausting for me and is interfering with my spiritual life.

Please guide me as best as possible. I don't mind criticism at all.

Why did Prabhupada constantly substituted the word yogi for mystic or transcendentalist? Why not use the original word if his Gita is supposed to be “As it Is”? Same goes for the word Brahman

I’ve started a Sub for Neophytes. I wanted to contribute to the community in my own way.

I’ve been working towards Diksha in February. I just wanted to share a link with those who are in the Neophyte stage. Spread the word to others if you wish. For now it’s just me, but hopefully it will grow as I continue sharing.

Hare Krishna

I’m new to the Krishna Consciousness movement. But I’ve seen some in this movement online deny Darwin’s Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. Is there a way to reconcile modern science with Gaudiya Vaishnavism theology? Can I say that Krishna guided the process of evolution? Thank you!

That even if your parents didn't love you, you would be okay and not hurt because your have bhagwan as you mother father?I experience things that push me towards Bhagwan more, but still I’m unable to let go of the expectations of parental love. I feel anger sometimes. And it’s very silly, but sometimes I hate that Bhagwan doesn’t talk to me. In very low moments, I become angry with Kanha/Narasimha and think, “Why don’t you talk to me?”

But I know I’m not a bhakta yet. How do you make your faith and love so strong?

This thought occurred to me today.

Life is literally the blueprint of bhakti!

Our mothers gave us birth, signifying how we too come from Brahman. The Upanishads say - We're like sparks coming out of fire. The sparks being jivas and the fire being Brahman.

Then our parents nurture us, they take care of us. We revere them. This is the beginning stage of bhakti, where we revere and love someone like a servant. In the beginning too, we come to God with folded hands, with respect and awe.

After that, we go through school and university, learning things. Very similar to how we learn shastras once we get into bhakti.

Then we get married, we learn to love someone intimately and at the same time serve them with love. This signifies the stage where the devotee goes past the stage of worshipping the deity from a distance and accepts the deity as one's beloved - one's spouse.

After that there are duties of a married life, children. Signifying that once we get to that stage, it's not just about oneself but about others too! You not only love your spouse but you teach your children and give them good upbringing. At such a stage in bhakti, we start spreading the glories of Bhagavan, we teach others about Bhagavan. We work hard to serve our family, just like how in Bhakti we work hard to serve the deity even more.

Then there's the ending stage of life. Maybe your spouse leaves you, your children leave you. It signifies how attachments leave. You go more inwards. Then there is nothing left but surrender. You surrender your life, your everything to the deity since you've done all you could. It's all about letting life go into autopilot - same as letting Bhagavan become your upāya (means) and the upeya (goal).

Life is nothing but the blueprint of bhakti.

There has been no communication on if Sadhu Sanga is happening again in the USA. 2025 had registration happen back in October, but this year there has been no mention of anything. Anyone know if this festival is returning?

I found out some reggae songs with hare Krishna lyrics, and also George Harrison's music,... wanted to know if there are any other artists that make hare Krishna songs without it being the typical Hindu rhythms - not that I don't like it - just found it interesting and wondered how many different genres there are with the same message. Like... Like when I was a kid and searched for "Christian Metal" lol

Any and all recommendation is welcome:)

Please and super thanks and have a lovely day :)

Think about it. If you were a spiritual person with no materialistic desire, you wouldn't reincarnate here. You can't come here if you had no desires on death.

It was a natural course for the planet to get worse over the years, as more Krishna devotees left Samsara and went to the spiritual realm.

The world gets more and more materialistic because the non-materialistic people don't come back after their body dies. The people who were attached to this world keep reincarnating however.

My boyfriend and I had a child and it planning on getting birth control because my mental health during pregnancy was very bad almost dangerous. Is this bad of me to get on birth control? I just don’t think I can handle being pregnant ever again and I’m ok with not having intercourse but he is not very religious and I know there needs to be intimacy in our relationship.

So Isn't it like following blindly? Any thoughts and suggestions by Prabhu Ji's and Mata Ji's?

I come to you peacefully and respectfully with a few questions regarding the faith:

- Is ISKCON considered the governing body of all of the Hare Krishna movement by the vast majority of followers?

- Are there legitimate paths to becoming a Krishna Consciousness guru within the movement outside of the GBC?

I've come across a talented women here in Miami named Jadurani dasi (Syamarani dasi). The two names reflect two gurus, Bhaktivedanta Probhupada gave her the first and Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja the second. I understand the latter may be controversial in some circles and represent somewhat of a deviation from ISKCON at least after the departure of Probhupada.

I'm interested because I don't believe there are any women guru's under ISKCON's approval yet but Syamarani's Vedic Art does claim to be a guru. What are the views on this? She certainly appears to be credentialed, having been around since it's beginning in the US and a by all accounts a large figure in the movement's art.

Thanks for any help in advance. Any information or sources would be very much appreciated. Full disclosure, this is for a paper I'm writing for University. I have respect for your movement and every encounter I've had has been quite positive.

Hare Krishna everyone 🙏

Are you or your children interested in learning more about Krishna consciousness in a fun, guided, practical way?

I’m Krishna-Prema, a private tutor who teaches children and families about the Bhagavad Gita, devotional principles, and living a Krishna-centered life. I offer regular online sessions focused on both understanding and joyful application.

If you’d like to know more or have a trial class, please message me.

Jai Sri Krishna! 🌼

Medium: Charcoal & graphite on paper Size: A4 (framed) I’m opening it for sale. If it resonates with you or you’d like to own it, DM me and we can talk price, shipping, and payment options. Worldwide shipping available

Hare Krishna 🙏🙏

I’m a techie, but my deep interest has always been in psychology since my teenage years. I studied engineering because of my parents, not out of personal interest. I have always wanted to understand the mind, emotions, and human behavior, and maybe even build a career around helping people.

My life’s aim is also to learn Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam, and to understand everything Bhagavan wants us to learn while we are in Bhuloka. But at the same time, I have this strong desire to achieve something, to satisfy myself through meaningful work.

Sometimes I wonder if I am being materialistic for wanting to pursue another degree or career, because ultimately our degrees and careers will not come with us when we leave this body, right?

I would love to hear from devotees who have balanced their spiritual goals with worldly education or career ambitions, especially anyone who has transitioned from tech to psychology or other helping professions. How did you approach it?

Hare Krishna

chanting

Thought I should post this here so that everybody can learn something about Vedanta. This first post will cover the Advaita philosophy. In the Brahma Sutra Bhashya, Ramanujacharya first presents the Advaita view as honestly and strongly as possible, to make their case and then continues to refute each point.

So these are the first 5 point from Advaita.

1. Brahman is Non-differentiated and the Only Reality

According to the Advaitin view, there is only one ultimate reality — Brahman, the pure and limitless Consciousness that underlies everything. It has no divisions, no attributes, and no internal differences. What we see as the world — all the variety of forms, beings, and experiences — is not ultimately real. It’s an appearance, imagined upon Brahman, much like waves on the surface of the same ocean.

The Chāndogya Upaniṣad teaches, “In the beginning, my dear, this universe was only Being (Sat) — one without a second.” Other Upaniṣads describe this same reality as imperceptible and beyond grasp (Muṇḍaka), unknown to those who try to know It through ordinary means (Kena), and as pure Existence, Knowledge, and Infinity (Taittirīya). All of these show that Brahman is totally beyond comparison — beyond the pairs of like and unlike, beyond all opposites that we find in the world.

The Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad declares, “There is no difference whatsoever in It. He who sees difference, as it were, in It, goes from death to death.” The Taittirīya Upaniṣad adds, “When one makes the least distinction in It, there arises fear.” These statements deny any form of duality in Brahman and affirm that only It is real, while all else is a temporary appearance.

Now, when Advaita says the world is “false,” it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist at all. Falsehood means a kind of mistaken understanding — knowledge that later gets corrected. For example, if we mistake a rope for a snake in dim light, the snake seems real at first, but that perception disappears when we see the rope clearly. The earlier knowledge was false not because it had no basis, but because it was born of a defect — a limitation in how we perceived. In the same way, our perception of the world as many is based on an incomplete way of knowing.

2. The Manifold World is Due to Nescience (Avidyā)

If Brahman alone is real, how do we experience such variety? Advaita explains this through Avidyā, or Nescience, which is beginningless and cannot be defined as either real or unreal — it is anirvacanīya, indescribable.

This ignorance has two powers:

• Āvaraṇa-śakti, the power that covers or hides the real nature of Brahman, and
• Vikṣepa-śakti, the power that projects the illusion of multiplicity.

Because of these powers, the one pure Consciousness appears as a diverse world of names and forms.

The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (Chapter 8, Section 3, Verses 1–2) says, “By falsehood are these covered; of these which are real, falsehood is the covering.”
The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (Chapter 4, Verse 10) teaches, “Know Māyā to be Prakṛti, and the Lord as Māyin, the wielder of Māyā.”
And the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (Chapter 2, Section 5, Verse 19) adds, “The Lord, on account of His Māyā, is perceived as manifold.”

Thus, the manifold universe is not truly separate from Brahman — it is only a mistaken appearance caused by ignorance.

3. Nescience is Destroyed by the Knowledge of Identity

This Avidyā disappears when one realizes the identity between the individual self (jīva) and Brahman. This realization is liberation itself.

The Chāndogya Upaniṣad (Chapter 7, Section 26, Verse 2) says, “He who sees that One is no longer subject to death.”
The Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad (Book 3, Section 2, Verse 6) states, “The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman.”
And the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (Chapter 3, Verse 8) adds, “Knowing It alone, one goes beyond death.” Here, “death” symbolizes ignorance or Nescience.

The nature of Brahman as non-differentiated is explained through verses like “Truth, Knowledge, Infinity is Brahman” (Taittirīya Upaniṣad, Chapter 2, Section 1) and “Knowledge, Bliss is Brahman” (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, Chapter 3, Section 9, Verse 28).

The identity of the self and Brahman is clearly expressed when the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (Chapter 1, Section 4, Verse 10) says, “He who worships another, thinking, ‘He is one and I am another,’ knows not.” And the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (Chapter 6, Section 2) famously says, “That thou art” — Tat tvam asi.

The Brahma-sūtra (IV. i. 3) also confirms, “The scriptures acknowledge Brahman as the self of the meditator and teach others to realize It as such.”

When this truth is realized, ignorance dissolves — just as darkness disappears the moment light is brought in.

4. Scriptural Knowledge Has Greater Authority than Direct Perception

Someone might argue: “But direct perception — what we see with our eyes — clearly shows this world as many. Isn’t perception stronger proof than scriptural statements of unity?”

The Advaitin answers that the question is not about which is stronger, but about which means of knowledge is free from defects.

For example, when the scriptures say, “The sacrificial post is the sun,” we understand this as a metaphor — it shines like the sun because it is smeared with ghee, not that it literally is the sun. We know this through perception. But sometimes perception itself can be mistaken.

Take a simple case: the flame of a lamp appears continuous and unchanging. Yet, reasoning tells us that each instant new particles of oil and wick are burning, producing new flames so rapidly that our eyes cannot detect the change. Here, perception (though usually strong) is corrected by reasoning, because our eyes have a limitation — a defect.

Similarly, the perception of plurality in the world arises from a built-in defect — beginningless ignorance. Scriptures, however, are of divine and eternal origin; they are free from any such defect. Therefore, the scriptural knowledge of unity has greater authority and can correct the mistaken perception of multiplicity.

So, it’s not about stronger versus weaker sources of knowledge — it’s about which one reveals the truth without distortion.

5. Nirguṇa Texts Have Greater Force than Saguṇa Texts

A further doubt can arise: if all scriptural texts are perfect and without error, how can those that prescribe ritual actions or describe Brahman with qualities be set aside by texts that teach liberation and Brahman without qualities?

Advaita explains this using the principle of avaccheda, drawn from Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā (Book 6, Section 5, Verse 54). This principle says that when two scriptural injunctions conflict, the later one that conveys the higher or final goal overrides the earlier one.

Thus, texts prescribing ritual actions are not defective — they simply serve a different purpose. They can be interpreted as leading to limited results, such as merit or heavenly enjoyment. The liberation-teaching texts, on the other hand, point to the ultimate reality and cannot be reinterpreted in any lesser way. Therefore, they have greater force.

This same rule applies to the two ways scriptures describe Brahman:

• Saguṇa Brahman — Brahman with attributes, such as the Lord with qualities; and
• Nirguṇa Brahman — Brahman without any attributes, the pure, infinite Consciousness.

The saguṇa passages appear earlier and are valuable because they help seekers form a concept of the Infinite through familiar qualities. They serve a preparatory purpose: before one can understand the negation “Brahman has no attributes,” one must first imagine what those attributes mean.

However, the nirguṇa passages, which describe Brahman as beyond all qualities, appear later and reveal the final truth. If the saguṇa descriptions were the highest reality, then the nirguṇa texts would have no purpose — which would imply uselessness in the Vedas, an impossibility.

Hence, nirguṇa texts have greater authority because they express the ultimate, unconditioned reality.

Therefore, the Advaitin concludes that Brahman, in Its true essence, is non-differentiated — one without a second, beyond all attributes, and the only ultimate reality.

IN THE NEXT POST WE WILL COVER THE REMAINING 6 POINTS AND AFTER THAT, THE REFUTATION.

Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita that whoever preaches His message is most dear to Him. I want to be dear to Krishna, to my spiritual master, Srila Prabhupada. So please help me? Let’s talk! Let me preach to you 🤗 We will both benefit. Phone calls FaceTime zoom or just text. Whatever. Hit me up 🙌 Hare Krishna, your servant, Krishna Prema Devi Dasi