Tattva-viveka
From Addiction & Aversion to Dedication
Gopakumara Das - January 5, 2011 4:54 pm
||1.2.14||
tatra adhikäré
yaù kenäpy atibhägyena jäta-çraddho ’sya sevane |
nätisakto na vairägya-bhäg asyäm adhikäry asau ||14||
Translation:
The qualified person is described as follows:
The person who has developed faith in serving the Lord by impressions arising from previous association with devotees, who is not too attached to material objects, and who is not too detached, is qualified for vaidhi-bhakti.
In Bhakti-Rasamrta Sindhu Rupa Goswami tells us a curious thing that helped me have an 'aha!" moment. This comes in the wake of another powerful insight coming from Gurumaharaja, the person Bhagavat. In this verse above Rupa Goswami tells us that we sadhakas cannot be too attached to material objects, an insight that is not new to western Gaudiya practitioners. However, the emphasis on this part of the injunction has often been distorted to create a life-averse mentality that often borders on moralistic fanaticism. As such, it tends to create not so much a morally upright community as much as a simultaneously proud and guilt ridden one. The second part of the second half of this verse also tells us that we should also not be too detached from material objects. This is such a curious statement, as it suggests something so balanced that it makes the path seem more amenable to many of us. Still, in further reflecting on this verse I realized that the suggestion is not one in which we are given free reign to enjoy.
Being averse to life is really just the flip-side of being addicted to life. In both cases the acts of taking-in and giving-up material enjoyments is compulsory or impulsive. Although the automatic and impulsive giving-up of material enjoyment is compelling to many of us, I argue that it is not what best qualifies us for the path of sadhana. If we maintain some attachment for the enjoyment of material objects we are creating a far more furtive ground for the establishment of another orientation to life: dedication. Dedication requires some sacrifice on the part of the enjoyer and this sacrifice demands attachment to the objects in order to qualify as sacrifice. It is not enough to say, "I will give up mayonnaise (as I hate it anyway)." This is not a sacrifice, this is aversion. Dedication requires us to say, "I really want to smoke that cigarette right now, but I won't. Not because it is bad, but because it is pleasurable to me. I want to give that pleasure –in this small moment– to the Absolute so that They may breath in more pleasure."
On Sunday Gurumaharaja said something like, "We want to reorient ourselves so that we are no longer the subject, who subjectively enjoys. We want to be the object, to the subjective enjoyment of Krsna." In other words, we want to become the enjoyed, not the enjoying. This is a tall order and I do not propose to have mastered this even in small quantity. But it is not unreasonable to say to myself, "Right now I want to taste this flesh...or right now I want to watch this movie...right now I want to touch this body...right now I want to hear this song...right now I want to breath this smoke...or finally...right now I want to think these thoughts." and reorient just that particular moment –not my entire being– to say, "Not right now...right now I give Them this desire so they may taste, see, touch, hear, smell and contemplate more and more." Even if this is done once in a long while, it should help us place ourselves as the object rather than the subject of Their pleasure. This may also help us be less moralistic, less addicted, less averse, and more dedicated.
And finally –in the spirit of this reflection– I offer my exhibitionism to gurumaharaja, who actually has given me all of these reflections.
yaù kenäpy atibhägyena jäta-çraddho ’sya sevane
The person who has developed faith in serving the Lord by impressions arising from previous association with devotees
Gaurasundara Das - January 5, 2011 9:18 pm
"Dedication requires some sacrifice on the part of the enjoyer and this sacrifice demands attachment to the objects in order to qualify as sacrifice. It is not enough to say, "I will give up mayonnaise (as I hate it anyway)." This is not a sacrifice, this is aversion. Dedication requires us to say, "I really want to smoke that cigarette right now, but I won't. Not because it is bad, but because it is pleasurable to me. I want to give that pleasure –in this small moment– to the Absolute so that They may breath in more pleasure."
I am not sure if I have understood this correctly but what you define as dedication seem to me to be actually more renunciation.
To give something up because it is pleasurable to you and offer that up as a sacrifice is tyaga.
There is no question of what the Absolute wants and if He even wants what your offering.
Certainly motivation plays a big part and purification is there in any form of sacrifice but it seem like this still falls within the sliding scale of bhoga and tyaga.
Anukulyasya sankalpa pratikulyasya varjanam. Our renunciation is to give up whatever He doesn't like (unfavorable for sadhana) and our enjoyment is to do what ever he does (favorable for sadhana). A slave has nothing to sacrifice, nothing belongs to him. We just try to aline our likes and dislikes with His.
Wether or not something is pleasurable to you and you give that up doesn't make the bhakti more powerful. If anything I would think it makes the renunciation more prominent.
These are just some thoughts that came while reading your post
Gopakumara Das - January 5, 2011 9:48 pm
I suggest that the concept of dedication is fuller and more dynamic than the concept of renunciation in that to dedicate one's desiring senses to the Absolute rather than to ourselves shifts the locus of centrality from us to the Absolute. This process thereby ascribes passionate attachments to Them rather than to the objects in this world. This is a dedication not of the objects of sensory desire but of our desiring senses themselves. Thereby we systematically give more and more of our dynamic selves over to the Absolute and invest more on that side than in self-centeredness. This description offers a systematic and gradual way to offer our whole selves in saranagati rather than merely renouncing ourselves entirely. Also, a natural consequence of this process should be a binding of ourselves to the Absolute; as the more of ourselves is dedicated to the Absolute the more invested we will be on that side.
I found the text of BRS to suggest such a concept. However, I am not sure that the terms are mutually exclusive as dedication does contain renunciation. However, I am not sure that renunciation contains dedication?
Nitaisundara Das - January 6, 2011 4:46 am
I have not read this whole thread yet but it reminded me of an article I came across the other day. There is a mental disorder (I think thats what they called it) centered around a sometimes crippling concern with the rules and regulations of a person's religion. It is seen across religions and literally can prevent people from doing anything for fear of transgressing moral injunctions. It had a name too. Cant remember and I can't remember where I found the article either. But perhaps you know of it already Gopa. I think the point of the article is that they are starting to treat such people successfully at some university.
-My fairly irrelevant two cents 
Gopakumara Das - January 6, 2011 6:07 am
Gaurasundara says, "I am not sure if I have understood this correctly but what you define as dedication seem to me to be actually more renunciation."
Rupa Goswami describes one of the angas of bhakti as krsnasya hetave meaning "renunciation of enjoyment to gain Krsna's mercy". This is along the lines of what you suggest above. However, Jiva Goswami then clarifies that the use of the dative case in the word hetu suggests that the act of renunciation is for another, and thus the verse can be translated as "renunciation of enjoyment for pleasing Krsna." This lines up well with what I was suggesting in terms of dedication rather than simple renunciation.
By the way Nitaisundara...that was a funny contribution! Yes, what you mention is just one of various expressions of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, in it's milder form Obsessive Compulsive Personality Disorder (very common in religious groups). The religious expression you mention has been coined Scrupulosity. Silly really because they make it sound like a separate thing... But maybe that helps psychologists keep things neat and ordered. Pun intended.
Citta Hari Dasa - January 8, 2011 11:25 pm
So we see that both renunciation and enjoyment are contained within bhakti, which makes it the original Middle Path.
Shyamananda Das - January 9, 2011 2:17 pm
I tried it out. During my japa today when a desire came up I thought "Krishna, I will not enjoy this, I want to be that enjoyment for you". In that moment it dawned on me, "What kind of enjoyment is that anyway? Krishna has much better things to enjoy". It reminded me of BG 7.14. Desires so strong that I can't even imagine to overcome them are no big deal (no deal at all) for Krishna. What a relief.
Like the desire to sleep long in the morning. Hey, we wake up the deity at 5 A.M. Shouldn't he be left to enjoy the sleeping? Obviously, the fact that Krishna rises early must mean that sleeping in the morning is not actually desirable. It's just my hellish attachment to tama guna.
Tomorrow I will try this technique on a long standing attachment of mine, namely long hot showers.
Thank you, Gopa.
Gopakumara Das - January 9, 2011 4:52 pm
I tried it out. During my japa today when a desire came up I thought "Krishna, I will not enjoy this, I want to be that enjoyment for you". In that moment it dawned on me...
Tomorrow I will try this technique on a long standing attachment of mine, namely long hot showers.
Thank you, Gopa.
Well, you have practiced what I preached better than I! It seems that it made you introspective, and your introspection was centered on what might the lord like and want more of. That seems like a nice thing to contemplate. Dedication makes one think about what the Lord may want dedicated to him. GM always suggests that as well.