Answer
That is a very elevated pastime, and we should be careful not to directly apply it to ordinary social media criticism and attacks. The pastime between Rupa Goswami and Jiva Goswami is on a very high spiritual level. It primarily demonstrates the extraordinary humility of Rupa Goswami and the mood of detachment from mundane prestige and scholarship.
Also, the debates in those days were often very different from what we imagine today. Many of those scholarly debates were not necessarily about transforming someone into a devotee or establishing Krishna consciousness in a preaching sense. Very often they revolved around displaying mastery of Sanskrit grammar, poetic composition, logic, memory, rhetoric, and scriptural scholarship. The mood could sometimes become: “Who is the greater scholar?” rather than genuine spiritual transformation.
For example, scholars would challenge each other to compose verses instantly, explain difficult grammatical constructions, or demonstrate extraordinary command over Sanskrit literature. Therefore, much of that “tarka” (debate) was about intellectual and linguistic superiority rather than direct devotional preaching.
That is why Rupa Goswami did not value unnecessary debate simply for prestige or victory. If there is no spiritual utility in argumentation, then what is the use? However, if discussion or debate can genuinely help transform someone, clarify siddhanta, or bring a person closer to devotional service, then that is different. Then it becomes engagement in Krishna’s service.
Similarly, when dealing with criticism today — especially on social media — devotees should first ask:
Is there genuine value in responding?
Will this help anyone spiritually?
Will it clarify misconceptions for sincere people?
Or will it simply become endless argumentation and ego conflict?
If there is no practical spiritual benefit, often it is better to ignore such attacks. But if innocent people are becoming confused, or if genuine siddhanta needs to be protected, then qualified devotees may respond appropriately.
Regarding Mayavada philosophy specifically, traditionally deep philosophical debate with highly learned impersonalists is considered extremely difficult. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu Himself debated and transformed the Mayavadi sannyasis in Varanasi. Such debates require extraordinary scriptural realization and spiritual potency.
That is why Lord Chaitanya advised ordinary devotees not to become unnecessarily entangled in complex impersonalistic arguments based on scriptural interpretation. Such discussions can become dangerous if one is not deeply grounded in siddhanta.
Nowadays, however, many people are not sophisticated Mayavadis in the traditional sense. Often they simply say things like:
“God is only energy.”
“There is some power but no personal God.”
“Everything is impersonal.”
With such people, simple rational discussion may be helpful.
For example, Srila Prabhupada would sometimes explain very simply:
“If I kick you, will you blame my leg or blame me?”
The leg is only the instrument or power. Behind the power is a person. Similarly, energy always implies an energetic source. Power is secondary; the powerful person is primary.
Such simple reasoning can help sincere people gradually move from impersonal understanding toward personal understanding of God.
In one sense, impersonal understanding can sometimes become a stepping stone. First a person understands there is some higher power; later they can understand that behind the power is the Supreme Person.
But traditional impersonalist scholars argue differently. They accept scripture as authority yet interpret scripture in an impersonal way. They may claim that ultimately the scriptures teach that God has no personality. Responding properly to such arguments requires very deep scriptural realization and should generally be handled by highly qualified devotees.
Therefore, in practical preaching:
avoid useless ego-based argumentation,
do not become disturbed by every criticism,
respond only where there is genuine spiritual benefit,
protect sincere people from confusion,
and always keep humility and devotional purpose at the center.
