Waves of Devotion

The success of yoga depends on our ability to concentrate or focus our attention on a particular object. Never in history has there been so much competition for that attention. Perhaps the biggest competitor for our attention, and thus our spiritual life, is social media. A short analysis as to why:[1]

A successful business markets a product. How then did Big Tech become one of the most successful commercial enterprises in history overnight if it is for free? The answer is simple: We are the product. Big Tech markets us to advertisers. We are a valuable commodity because advertisers sell certainty in sales, and the extraordinary amount of data Big Tech collects on us ensures them exactly that—the advertisements of whomever learns the sophisticated science of utilizing the vast data of our preferences and proclivities will be, without doubt, successful. Such predictability is obviously a businessman’s dream.

I think we all already basically know this in a cursory way. What I don’t think we understand is the level that they are able to control us. Simply put, we are dealing with behavior changing geniuses who have perfected the science of the gradual and imperceptible change of what we think, what we do, and who we are on behalf of a commercial goal. Perhaps even more frightening is that as they collect more and more data over time, their prediction models on each of us becomes increasingly refined, enabling them to not only control us for commercial purposes but also to inculcate their own non-spiritual values.

There are obvious ramifications in all this for those with a spiritual goal, and certainly for those seeking to develop Vrindavan bhakti. On one side is guru, sādhu, and śāstra trying to mold our attention towards a philosophy and culture of selflessness and devotion, and on the other side stands a business model geared to get as much of our attention as possible by inspiring our ego and greed. Just see their juxtaposition. While the whole purpose of yoga is to quell the frivolous fluctuations of the mind, the insidious purpose behind social media is to exponentially increase them. It is a battle for our soul. May Lord Krishna save us!

“There are only two industries that call their customers ‘users’: illegal drugs and software.” —Edward Tufte

“Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.” — Sophocles

[1]  Much of my analysis comes from the documentary The Social Dilemma http://www.documentaryarea.tv/player.php?title=The%20Social%20Dilemma

One on the path of bhakti is not inclined to argue. At the least one should try to avoid it. Śrī Nārada felt strongly enough about this principle to include it in his carefully chosen sūtras for those serious on the path of bhakti:

“One should not engage in argumentative debate.” (NBS 75)

Of course, one may reluctantly engage in debate or argument to establish important truths to protect others from confusion, but, in general, a Vaiṣṇava doesn’t care to defend themself, especially in contentious discourse that is mostly based on ego. The starkest example of this characteristic was demonstrated in the life of the great Vaiṣṇava scholars Śrī Rūpa and Śrī Sanātana. When a prideful traveling scholar named Rupanārāyaṇa Sarasvatī, also known as digvijaya (a person who had conquered everyone in all directions) came to Vrindavan to challenge them, rather than waste precious time in argument, they informed the visiting paṇḍita that their reputation as great scholars was exaggerated. When he pressed them further for debate, they even signed his jayapatra, a letter acknowledging defeat by him, although by all accounts they were more than qualified to engage with him.[1]

The message here is clear. A Vaiṣṇava has one clear objective, to attain love of Godhead. He or she therefore doesn’t prioritize false ego—that cherished conception of being better than others, founded on the desire to be the controller and enjoyer. In contrast, most people in this world are figuratively ready to die to defend themselves. Die to defend themselves? Yes, just reflect on your reaction the last time someone told you that you were wrong! I did. It hurts to acknowledge our mistakes.

As the world has become increasingly polarized on practically every issue, I have been thinking a lot about how vigilant one on the path of bhakti must be to keep this principle in the forefront of their consciousness—that neither being right nor defending oneself from being wrong has value if it does not increase the devotion in our hearts or serve the upliftment of others.

At times, I have shared with my audience my penchant for branding and making catchy phrases. I would like to end with one that came spontaneously to my mind this year by observing how much this unhealthy ego-driven urge to always be right has been exacerbated by the nature of today’s polemic. My experience and observation are that relationships, even one’s important to the progress of devotion in oneself and others, are too often put at risk for the sake of victory, unless one is firm in the conviction that:

Relationship is more important than being right.

[1] Śrī Jīva, the nephew and disciple of Śrī Rūpa Gosvāmī, soon after Rūpanaryan Sarasvatī’s engagement with Śrī Rūpa and Śrī Sanātana, defeated the paṇḍita in debate after a seven-day discussion. For a more elaborate description of the whole story of Rūpanārāyaṇa Sarasvatī’s visit to Vrindavan and his consequent defeat by Śrī Jīva see The Six Goswamis of Vrindavan, Steven Rosen (Satyaraja Dasa), Ch. 5.

What Is Bhakti? [1]

Bhakti is a faith—the faith that the best thing is to surrender to God with devotion. But it is more than just an understanding. It is the actual feeling in the heart to want to do so.

And bhakti is more than just that feeling of devotion. It is also the practical expression of that feeling through the faculty of the mind, body, and words called devotional service, or seva.

And higher than that is pure devotion, when that practical expression to please Krishna is the exclusive desire of the heart, unmixed with or covered by any other desire.

Ultimately, bhakti is also God’s energy, the essence of His pleasure potency, which Krishna mercifully places in the heart of that devotee who attracts His mercy by pure devotional service.

Is bhakti inherent? Bhakti is certainly the jiva’s purpose lying dormant within heart, which is actualized when touched by the Lord’s internal potency.

That full potential of bhakti is thus called bhaktyānanda,[2]  the bliss of devotion, which is the essence of God’s internal potency and His highest pleasure. Unlike svarūpānanda, God’s own pleasure, in which He basks alone, bhaktyānanda, the bliss of devotion, must come from another. We are that potential “other,” created as receptacles for a love meant to be offered back to the one who has bestowed it. That is real bhakti, because love of Godhead, kṛṣṇa-premā, the essence of His pleasure potency (hlādinī-śakti), is the thing that pleases God the most.

To understand such bhakti, we must understand the term tad-ātmikā, “to become one with.” Our eternal nature is to serve, to be perfect instruments for the pleasure of God. When that service attitude is pure and God trusts us with His energy of love, our devotionally inclined mind becomes fully energized by, or one with, that love, just as an iron rod becomes energized or one (tad-ātmikā) with fire. That mind absorbed in devotion offered back to God for His pleasure is bhakti in its highest sense, although the mood of service and the practices of devotion to get such bhakti can also be deemed bhakti.

Monday Morning Greetings has a diverse audience, from people many decades mature in bhakti to those with a cursory interest who may have signed on to my mailing list after hearing just one of my lectures. This Greeting touches some deep philosophical content that may give food for thought, especially to experienced practitioners of bhakti, but I hope these beautiful concepts will touch everyone’s heart. To close, I would like to offer a definition of bhakti that was shared with me by a Sanskrit scholar,[3] which in a sense sums up the essence of bhakti in such a way that if you can imbibe that mood, then for sure you will one day be bestowed with the highest devotion. He told me, “Bhakti is to make oneself available [for service].”

[1] This is a reprint from June 12, 2017, that I have edited slightly.

[2] I did further research on this subject from Priti Sandarbha 65 (section 63 in some editions, such as H.H. Bhanu Swami’s translation) since 2017 when I first published this article. Bhaktyananda is discussed there in relation to Krishna and His eternal associates, which we may eventually fully experience at the stage of perfection when we qualify to exchange love with Krishna in His eternal pastimes.

[3] This definition was shared with me many years ago by Pradyumna das, who served as Srila Prabhupada’s Sanskrit editor, in a discussion I once had with him.

Last week I received a very interesting inquiry from Satyaraja dasa concerning my post “Are the Gopīs the Greatest Renunciates?” Below is his inquiry and my attempt to answer it:

“One question in regard to your latest essay. Might it not be dangerous to cite the example of the gopīs as the “exemplars of renunciation”? I mean, should one just leave everything to go be with Krishna? What about dharma? Might this not send the wrong message? For example, might not a simple married person, with children, read this and then enthusiastically join ISKCON, giving up his responsibilities in the material world? Is that what we want? Shouldn’t we in fact NOT follow the gopīs’ example if we have prior commitments in the material world, and instead engage in bhakti while honoring our prior commitments? Otherwise, society falls into chaos.”

For the sake of focusing the discussion, I will paraphrase his inquiry: What exactly is the gopīs’ example of renunciation, and can it be dangerous to cite them as an example?

First, it’s important to point out something about comparisons: “One should not disregard a comparison simply because it is partially applicable.” (Bhagavat-sandarbha, Anuccheda 40) In other words, when we use a comparison, it is usually meant to compare only particular aspects of two things, not everything. For example, if one compares another person’s face to the moon, it may just be referring to the brightness of their face, not its shape, depending on the context in which it is used.

In terms of the comparison between the renunciation of the gopīs and the ideal for sannyāsa, the example of the gopīs highlighted complete disinterest in the object of the senses or any internal attachment, like respect and honor, to the extent of being prepared to make any sacrifice for the service of Krishna, including renouncing all attachments in this world. It seems to be a perfect example for the renounced order of life and for the aspects of the comparison I was trying to highlight, which is why in the beginning of my post I wrote:

“Why do the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava ācāryas connect gopī-bhāva, meditating on the gopīs, to the inspiration for renunciation when a member of their sect takes the varṇāśrama social position of sannyāsa?”

The difficulty that Satyaraja observes is that the gopīs are householders, and as I cite them as the ideal example of renunciation, people can easily misunderstand my comparison as being completely applicable, and therefore make bad decisions such as the ones Satyaraja pointed out where people not only renounce things that are required for their spiritual life, but also cause a social disturbance in doing so. I trust that his concern is at least partially based on the history of ISKCON in its early development where an immature understanding of renunciation too often led to demeaning household life and women.

In further defense of Satyaraja’s concern, it is of note that one of the main themes of the Bhagavad-gītā is that spiritual life is dedication or devotion and not external renunciation, and thus Arjuna could be on highest platform of spiritual life even as a warrior in battle. In other words, Satyaraja’s concern is an existential and historical concern—that people suffering in this world tend to misunderstand spiritual life only as leaving what they are doing rather than changing how they are thinking and feeling, even on the path of devotion.

I should note that doesn’t dismiss that within the path of bhakti, as one advances in devotion, one should increasingly become detached from material life and also gradually become even more externally renounced. [1] Only in that sense the gopīs’ renunciation may serve as an inspiration for all, although Śrīla Prabhupāda makes it very clear in his description of the rasa dance that the gopīs’ abject renunciation of the world for the sake of Krishna, to the extent of surpassing and transcending all Vedic injunctions “was possible for the gopīs because they saw Krishna face to face,” and “not possible for any women in the conditioned state.” [2]

I hope it is clear now what my comparison between the gopīs and sannyāsa was meant to highlight and that Satyaraja’s input and my clarification helps to inoculate my presentation from the type of misunderstanding that historically has caused too much confusion and harm.

[1] Śrīla Prabhupāda comments on the gopīs’ renunciation: “This is the test of advancement in Krishna consciousness: a person advancing in Krishna-consciousness must lose interest in material activities and personal sense gratification.” (Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Ch. 29)

[2] Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Ch. 29