Read Chapter 14 of The Nectar of Devotion, “Devotional Qualifications.” The chapter covers verses 248-269 of the second wave of Bhaktirasamrita-sindhu’s Eastern Division. This chapter continues Srila Rupa Gosvami’s analysis of the relations between various spiritual practices and pure devotional service, beginning with an analysis of jnana and vairagya, which may be mistakenly accepted as angas of bhakti. Whereas jnana and vairagya may in the beginning help new devotees focus their minds on Krishna by steering them away from distraction by sense objects, jnana and vairagya do not directly fix the mind on Krishna. The best they can do is to develop some philosophical sense of discrimination between spirit and matter and help dispense with other distracting influences. Since jnana and vairagya fail to fix the mind on Krishna, which is the most essential element of sadhana, they cannot be considered items of sadhana-bhakti. As we see in Srimad-Bhagavatam, only bhakti can awaken bhakti: bhaktya sanjataya bhaktya (11.3.31). Or, as Srila Prabhupada says at the beginning of Chapter 14, “Krishna consciousness—devotional service itself—is the only way of advancing in devotional service.”
This chapter also discusses the distinction between appropriate renunciation (yukta vairagya) and inappropriate renunciation (phalgu vairagya). Sri Rupa explains the differences in verses 255-56:
“Things should be accepted for the Lord’s service and not for one’s personal sense gratification. If one accepts something without attachment and accepts it because it is related to Krishna, one’s renunciation is called yukta-vairagya.”
“When persons eager to achieve liberation renounce things related to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, thinking them to be material, their renunciation is called incomplete.”
Something else that should not be considered an anga of bhakti is service performed through one’s wealth or followers. Srila Prabhupada admonishes that devotees should never “be carried away by an accumulation of wealth or a large number of followers.” In fact, commenting on this, Srila Jiva Gosvami points out that when Srila Rupa Gosvami defines uttama bhakti as “uncovered by karma, jnana, and other things,” this includes “slackness,” indicating that such performance of bhakti through one’s money or followers cannot be counted as an item of regulative devotional service. Srila Visvanath Cakravarti Thakura further says that hearing and chanting the names and glories of the Lord require no wealth or disciples. Although, for example, a spiritual master’s training devotees to worship the Deity in the temple may be devotional service, the worship they subsequently perform is their own devotional service, not his. If he doesn’t understand this, his own service may slacken.
The chapter ends with discussion of the principle that we may regulative devotional service by concentrating either on one particular item of bhakti or equally on all the items.
One point to note carefully in this chapter is that bhakti does not depend on any philosophical cultivation or renunciation, but that these appear naturally as the devotee cultivates bhakti. Srila Prabhupada cites Bilvamangala Thakura as saying that mukti herself serves unalloyed devotees:
“If I am engaged in pure devotional service to you, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, then I can easily perceive the presence of your youthful form everywhere. And liberation personally stands at my door with folded hands, waiting to serve me, with religiosity, economic development, sense enjoyment nearby.”
Drawing on both scripture and your own experiences, what are some of the characteristics—and consequences—of appropriate renunciation, inappropriate renunciation, and improper application of the principle of yukta vairagya?
Drawing on both scripture and your own experiences, what are some of the characteristics—and consequences—of appropriate renunciation, inappropriate renunciation, and improper application of the principle of yukta vairagya?
This is a great homework question that I hope people respond to. I really want to but I don't have a lot of time on my hands this past week. What keeps popping into my head everytime I think of this thread is this quote from BSST:
krsna bhajane yaha haya anukula
visaya baliya tyage taha haya bhula
"If one is so expert that one can engage or dovetail everything in the service of the Lord, to give up the material world would be a great blunder."
Many comments about this statement could be made, first of which I think is one has to measure how "expert" one is and then balance one's engagement or disengagement from the world.
What keeps popping into my head everytime I think of this thread is this quote from BSST:krsna bhajane yaha haya anukula
visaya baliya tyage taha haya bhula
"If one is so expert that one can engage or dovetail everything in the service of the Lord, to give up the material world would be a great blunder."
Many comments about this statement could be made, first of which I think is one has to measure how "expert" one is and then balance one's engagement or disengagement from the world.
Madan, as usual, you've brought up a very useful question. I do hope we can get some conversation going around this issue, especially considering the progressive nature of our sanga.
I'm going to have to think about this a little, after I get some other things sorted out today. But an immediate response I have is that our own expertise and judgment may be augmented with good guidance from someone else whose vision is clearer. Part of our discussion may also focus on what it might mean to engage everything or to "give up the material world" for different devotees in different circumstances.
So here's what may be a natural question to address: What forms might appropriate renunciation take for different devotees, for example, some of those in our sanga? What about someone young and not yet involved in family life? Or someone who's in the thick of family life, as Madan is, or as Jason may soon be? Or someone whose situation in life is a little less inclined to what may be considered orthodox, such as Syama or Philip? Or geezers like me? Or those with different occupational inclinations? We have a really varied group, I think, which should give us plenty to think about and discuss.
Anyone?
Is this assignment out of juice? Does anyone else have questions that might relate to the issues this chapter addresses? Should we move on?
Okay, it appears that this assignment doesn't get many of us going, so I'll try the next one. If anyone has any further comments or questions about this one at any time, just chime in. The Classroom is always open, and none of the assignments is ever closed.
I thought these might be interesting questions for discussion, but if anyone can think of other angles for discussing this chapter, feel free to post them here, or to write me with other suggestions.
Just bumping this thread up to exploit Niscala's question.
Is sambandha-jnana, or knowledge of the relationship between Krsna and the jivas, considered to be a part of jnana or bhakti?
Is sambandha-jnana, or knowledge of the relationship between Krsna and the jivas, considered to be a part of jnana or bhakti?
Bhakti, especially sadhana bhakti.