Sorry little buddy! Looks like you're still in Maya!

The problem I see with Gaudiya Vaishnavism (etc) is that you’re expected to accept the entire package as-is—no questioning, no picking things apart. The moment you start doubting even one aspect, like the historicity of Krishna, the age of the Bhagavatam, or the origins of Radha as a goddess, the entire belief system begins to unravel. That’s why devotees are forced into a mental all-or-nothing trap: either reject everything as religious nonsense or spend your time making elaborate justifications—cherry-picking verses, using flowery explanations, and convincing yourself that if something is described as "blissful" and "absolute," it must be real.

The Historical Problem: Krishna, Radha, and the Scriptures

The biggest issue with this unquestioning approach is that the foundation of Krishna Consciousness is historically weak. Krishna’s historicity is already highly disputed. Outside of religious texts, there is zero archaeological or historical evidence that he existed as described. Even the Bhagavatam, which is supposed to be the "eternal word of God," was likely written between the 9th and 12th centuries CE—long after Krishna was supposedly on Earth based on linguistic analysis and multiple scholarly assessments of its composition/themes, etc.

Radha’s origins are even more questionable than Krishna’s. She does not appear in early Vedic or epic Hindu scriptures like the Rigveda, Mahabharata, or even the early versions of the Bhagavata Purana. Her character starts appearing in texts around the 12th century CE, particularly in the Gita Govinda by Jayadeva, where she is depicted as Krishna’s beloved. However, she didn’t fully ascend to the status of a worshippable goddess until the rise of Gaudiya Vaishnavism in the 16th century, when the sect needed to expand Krishna’s romantic mythology and place a greater emphasis on devotion (bhakti) through the idealized, divine love between Radha and Krishna.

Even within Hindu traditions, her status is debated. Some sects venerate her as the hladini shakti (Krishna’s internal pleasure potency), while others barely acknowledge her existence. Unlike major deities with deep-rooted scriptural histories, Radha's divinity was retroactively constructed to serve a specific theological and devotional framework. That alone should raise massive questions—yet within Krishna Consciousness, believers are discouraged from asking them.

The Myth of “Dynamic” and “Ever-Increasing Bliss”

Devotees love to claim that Krishna and his pastimes are "eternally dynamic" and "ever-increasing in bliss." But what does that actually mean? The scriptures don’t describe Krishna’s world (Goloka) as dynamic at all. If anything, it’s portrayed as a static paradise—a place where everyone is eternally herding cows, dancing, and engaging in an endless cycle of devotion. Nothing changes, evolves, or progresses. It’s a closed, repetitive loop.

If they want to claim that within that framework, there’s some hidden "flux of bliss" that we just can’t perceive, fine. But good luck explaining that in any coherent way to the average person exploring Krishna Consciousness. That’s why they pivot to more relatable concepts—like chanting as a way to feel connected to God.

Sure, chanting can create a temporary emotional state, just like meditation, music, or any repetitive practice. But let’s be honest: most of it is just convincing yourself that something profound is happening. The experience itself becomes the "proof," even though identical experiences can be found in countless other religious and non-religious settings.

And here’s the real question: Where is this “ever-increasing bliss”? If it were real, shouldn’t we be seeing devotees in ecstatic transcendent states all the time? Instead, we see exhausted devotees, disillusioned ex-members, and ISKCON leaders caught up in power struggles, scandals, and the same human drama as everyone else. If bliss is ever-expanding, why aren’t they walking around in a state of perpetual euphoria? Instead, they seem stressed out, drained, and constantly trying to convince themselves they’re happy. Sounds like some serious smoke being blown up people’s asses.

The Free Will vs. Maya Contradiction

Another glaring contradiction is how Krishna supposedly gives you free will, yet at the same time, Maya is actively working to block you from reaching him. And conveniently, Maya is described as Krishna’s own servant. So let me get this straight:

• Krishna wants you to turn to him.
• But Maya—who works for him—is making sure you don’t.
• And if you struggle to surrender, it’s your fault.

That’s like a teacher locking the classroom door and then failing the students for not showing up to class. How does that make any sense? It turns Krishna into an untrustworthy manipulator, setting people up to fail while demanding unconditional love. And yet, you’re supposed to feel "attraction" and "reciprocal love" for a god who rigs the game against you?

The Forced and Unnatural Relationships in Krishna Consciousness

For all the talk of "a personal relationship with Krishna," the reality is that most adherents don’t actually experience one. Their real relationship is with ISKCON’s hierarchy—their guru, temple authorities, and senior devotees. But even those relationships are unnatural, transactional, and awkward.

Seeing Hare Krishnas throw themselves flat on the ground in full-body prostration is one of the most unnatural human acts imaginable, even in India. Yet they try to normalize it by making ridiculous comparisons—like saying spiritual understanding is like teaching U.S. history to kindergarteners versus high schoolers. That somehow you can't reveal the more esoteric ideas to neophytes because they will misunderstand them.

But I’m sorry, nothing about Krishna Consciousness is normal. It’s not something you naturally come to believe—it’s something you have to be conditioned into over time. Unless you’re born and raised in it, Krishna Consciousness requires a slow, systematic rewiring of how you think, replacing natural instincts with cultic logic. It's far removed from natural learning processes where you are asked to incrementally expand and build upon rational, structured, and verifiable concepts.

And Prabhupāda was famous for gaslighting his followers about this, saying that Krishna consciousness is "bitter at first, like sugar to a jaundiced patient." No, it’s not bitter because we have some spiritual disease—it’s bitter because it’s an acquired taste that doesn’t naturally appeal to the average person at face value.

We all universally recognize a sunrise as beautiful. We can collectively agree that music, kindness, and human connection can feel inherently good. But no one instinctively starts chanting Sanskrit mantras to blue-skinned gods. That’s not universal truth—that’s cultural indoctrination.

The Rehabilitation Analogy—Pain vs. Bliss

Devotees argue that Krishna Consciousness feels difficult at first because we "just can’t taste the bliss yet." But no one tells a recovering addict, "Withdrawal is pure joy!"—they endure it to heal. No one tells a patient in physical therapy, "Pain is the ultimate pleasure!"—they push through it to walk again.

Krishna Consciousness, however, insists that the struggle itself is bliss, turning suffering into a virtue. It’s a clever tactic to make followers blame themselves for their dissatisfaction rather than questioning the belief system itself.

Final Rejection—Nothing Unique Here

And when you step back and assess it objectively, Krishna Consciousness isn’t teaching anything unique. The parts of it that actually work—discipline, meditation, introspection, and community—exist in every self-improvement system, religion, and philosophy.

You don’t need a cult to chant, meditate, or reflect on life. The parts that make Krishna Consciousness unique are the parts that demand blind faith, submission, and unquestioning loyalty to an institution. And that’s the real issue.

They demand everything from you—your time, your identity, your critical thinking—all while selling you the idea that you’re receiving something greater in return. But when you strip away the flowery language, the vague promises, and the endless justifications, what’s left?

A highly structured, rigid system that thrives on self-reinforcing beliefs, emotional dependency, and the suppression of doubt. In other words—just another cult.