Indulgence Money

On June 1, 2022, I was in a conversation with Bhaktivedanta Swami, who is deceased. This was on the astral side, He reviewed the Vaishnava philosophy of the sect he represented and which he introduced to the Western society. He asked for my opinion which I did not give because he was aware of my view on the topic. I had objected to it some years ago in 1980 when two of his senior disciples challenged me and stated that he authorized that they could commit certain acts which were contrary to his regulative principles.

They cited his encouragement and benefit when intoxicating drugs were sold for a profit and the money was given to the Swami for Krishna conscious activities. Since the Swami accepted this type of finance, those disciples felt that it was a valid method of devotional service.

As time would have it however, their society faced legal difficulties and tragic incidences, even murders, because of being involved with the acquirement and distribution of drugs.

Now however the Swami is of a different opinion. On the astral side, he showed me why indulgence in harmful activities could not bring good results to his society. What this amounted to is that he now argues that if someone indulges in a vice which runs contrary to the prohibitions in their scriptures, as for example the use of narcotics, then their deity, Krishna, would not handle the incidences and their effects. This means that the devotees who participated will be ruined accordingly.

What was not clear was how the negative energies of negative actions would be distributed as immediate or future consequences. If the consequences are remote, these will not be assessed for their worth, and hence devotees will make mistakes and may have confidence in acts of acquiring money by criminal means. That in turn boost confidence in the deviant methods which in turn, will increase the negative returns which in the future will afflict all persons involved.

It is best therefore, not to be involved in a lifestyle which runs contrary to righteous conduct because the idea that the benefits can be offered to Krishna is invalid. Of course, the deity or icon will be silent and that itself is a warning. Those who acquire money by criminal means and who use that money to build and outfit temples and to manufacture devotional literature may think or be assured that their money can be sanitized by offering it to Krishna, by purchasing expensive items for temples and their related paraphernalia, by sponsoring the luxurious lifestyle of their swamis and officials. But these acts do not sanitize the money as some devotees feel. Krishna does not accept their service in that way but Krishna is not here physically to inform them about his view. Hence, they are prone to operating in a counterproductive way.

Bhaktivedanta said that he got the wrong idea from his authorities in the Vaishnava community in India. Now he desires to change the opinion but he is not on the physical side to do so.