I had an interesting discussion with my friend Brajabhūṣaṇa Dās (HDS), who expressed disagreement with me about the issue of Work and Family. Brajabhūṣaṇa Dās argued that work is itself uttama bhakti.
Brajabhūṣaṇa Dās: I think that separating one's job from one's bhakti is one of the major mistakes of Western devotees. I don't have enough knowledge of Bhakti Sandarbha, so I can't argue in this direction, but I can do so in regard to BRS 1.1.11. The word kṛṣṇānuśīlanam refers to activities done directly or indirectly to Kṛṣṇa (kṛṣṇa-sambandhi kṛṣṇārthaṁ vānuśīlanam iti - tīkā by Viśvanātha and Jīva). A devotee who has taken dīkṣā and has surrendered in this way to guru and Kṛṣṇa does all his activities, directly or indirectly, to please these two. Thus by having a job he indirectly serves as by earning money he can maintain his body fit for service (buying food, paying for rent, electricity...) He can use the rest of his money for direct service, as agreed on with his Guru. Therefore, uttama-bhakti comprises all your activities. It's not that only chanting, kīrtan etc is bhakti and your going to work is not - providing, of course, that you keep your consciousness of a servant all the time.
Advaitadas: “If all of this would be included in uttamā bhakti, then why would Jīva Gosvāmī have made a distinction between svarūpa siddha, āropa siddha and saṅga siddha bhakti at all?”
Brajabhūṣaṇa Dās: “Although, as said, I don't have much knowledge of Bhakti Sandarbha, still I will try to explain, drawing on my Guruji's darśans and Sanskrit texts that are at my disposal (and that I can understand). It is very probable that in a treatise on bhakti its author would try to describe all kinds of bhakti. In reality there is only one real bhakti, and that is uttama bhakti, ie that which is done only for Kṛṣṇa's pleasure, without other motives (BRS 1.1.11). However, as it happens, people usually do have some motives and use bhakti to achieve their respective goals. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī thus describes also these kinds of bhakti.
Speaking for example about āropa-siddha-bhakti, it's clear that this is not bhakti in itself (svato bhaktitvābhāve'pi) yet is considered to have the status of bhakti (bhaktitvaṁ prāptā) on account of offering one's work, etc, to Bhagavān (bhagavad-arpaṇādinā karmādi-rūpā). This kind of a person wants something from Bhagavān so he offers him his work (otherwise he wouldn't offer it). Thus, we can speak about āropa-siddha-bhakti in case of a material person who at least accepts that there is God but is yet far from attaining the stage when he will not want anything from Him, just please Him (far from the stage of uttamā bhakti). Basically it's karma-miśra-bhakti, not pure bhakti.
So the answer to your question is that in Bhakti Sandarbha Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī wanted to show all kinds of bhakti (also those done by persons with various material motives) therefore he made this distinction. However, in his commentary on uttama bhakti (which isn't done by persons with material motives) in BRS 1.1.11 he doesn't speak about all these various kinds of bhakti, as the topic is uttama bhakti solely. There he says that the word 'anuśīlanam' means doing all your activities, directly or indirectly, favourably for Kṛṣṇa (kṛṣṇa-sambandhi kṛṣṇārthaṁ vānuśīlanam iti) which is possible if you are surrendered.”
Advaitadas: “Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda clearly comments on Bhagavad Gītā 9.27 that offering all your activities is niṣkāma karma yoga, which does not culminate in kevala bhakti.”
Brajabhūṣaṇa Dās: “When I said that after surrendering to your Guruji all your activities are done directly or indirectly for pleasing him and Kṛṣṇa, I didn't mean by that offering your activities to Kṛṣṇa. In the very ṭīkā you mention (Bg. 9.27) it is said that in the highest bhakti it is not that you do work and then you offer (the result of) it. Rather, you offer yourself first (to Guru and Kṛṣṇa - at the time of dīkṣā) and then everything you do is automatically for Kṛṣṇa. (bhagavati viṣṇau bhaktiḥ kriyate, sā cārpitaiva satī yadi kriyeta, na tu kṛtā satī paścād arpyate) Because what happens if you work and offer it to Kṛṣṇa? By this you maintain your independence or separation from Guru or Kṛṣṇa. You don't want to surrender, you don't want to do what your Guru tells you - you just want to do what you want to, but at least you offer the work to Kṛṣṇa, so it's not as bad as someone who works and enjoys the fruit of his work without any regard for God. Still, it's not uttama bhakti. This working and offering it to Kṛṣṇa is āropa-siddha-bhakti (something like a first step of a material person towards devotional path) while wanting only to please Him, which includes all the activities of a surrendered disciple, is uttamā-bhakti, the highest bhakti. Clearly, these are two totally different phenomena, and we cannot apply things connected with a material person doing aropa-siddha-bhakti to a surrendered disciple doing uttama-bhakti. Therefore, in uttama bhakti there is no separation between your job (and similar 'material' things) and your bhakti. Imagine the situation of someone who has taken diksa - he wants to do all those devotional items but has only little time for it, as he has to work in order to survive, to say the least. He will be nervous that he spends so much time doing something which he thinks (as 'bhakta' nicely suggested) does not give pleasure to Radha and Kṛṣṇa. He will constantly live with this inner tension which will certainly not be very helpful in his devotional life and may account for a lot of frustration, or even leaving the path seeing the almost impossibility to dovetail his working life with his devotional life. Isn't it a big contrast to someone who understands that all his activities are for Kṛṣṇa and guru only? Such a person doesn't have this inner tension and can thus fully use his potential for service.”
Advaitadas: “What about all the expenses your non devotee children or non devotee wife make? What about taxes you have to pay which will be spent on mundane or sinful activities of the state? Is that also uttama bhakti? I know it all depends on the attitude, but if you know what some of your hard earned money is spent on, can you honestly offer that to Kṛṣṇa? When I was collecting for Iskcon, I believed this was uttama bhakti but when I found out that the gṛhasthas were using my blood sweat and tears for buying expensive ponies for their children and expensive jeeps and luxury cars for themselves, my uttama bhakti collapsed on the spot. I mean, you cannot just fake it, can you?”
Brajabhūṣaṇa Dās: “As a surrendered devotee I would never marry someone less surrendered or having other motives than pleasing guru or Kṛṣṇa. I agree with 'bhakta' that a (devotee-) marriage is no longer a prison, quite the contrary. As I said, to be able to serve you need to have money for buying food, paying rent... Usually people need a job to acquire it. So when you have a job you have to pay taxes - it's part of the system. If you don't pay them, you might run into trouble and get to prison - so how will you serve there? Therefore I see no difficulty in paying them. If they use them in an improper way, what can I do? It will be their bad karma, but I can go on serving. And, apart from that, while many people are corrupted, still I think the majority of tax money goes on civil servants' pay, pensions etc, otherwise the state couldn't function, so my paying of taxes contributes to the normal working of the society. I think Kṛṣṇa is happy when societies work well. Of course, all I do is with my Guruji in my mind. He never said a word against taxes. Rather, he always says that we live in a society and we need to follow the rules of that society. Only when you live without problems or conflicts with the society can your service fully be done.
I am sorry to hear about your bad experience with ISKCON. Your conviction was certainly ruined on finding out about jeeps etc and I imagine it must have been very painful. However, I think that now you realize that the fault was not in the philosophy of uttama bhakti itself. Rather, you were unlucky to serve unworthy Guru(s). Uttama bhakti can only be practised under a genuine guru, who is realized. There is no doubt that all the activities you do under his guidance are uttama bhakti, as He is Kṛṣṇa Himself guiding you in a human form.”
Brajabhūṣaṇa Dās writes in his following e-mail:
“If it happens though that you are married, have children, then you also have obligation towards them. In the same way as you have your obligation towards the society you have them towards your family members too. Of course it's very sad if you thus have to support beef-eaters etc but it IS your responsibility to take care of them, otherwise how will the society function. But, I think, people should do it just the way you do it - give them the minimum they need. My Guruji says that we SHOULD maintain our family commitments / relationships. For example, my parents are beef-eaters too, but I see no harm in helping them financially, since I am their son and they are my worshipable. In Kṛṣṇa-bhajanāmṛta it is said 'pitā gurur vā patir vā nirguṇo'pi pūjya eva' - even if they become devoid of good qualities they are worshipable. I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I support them as much as necessary and associate with them only as much as necessary.”
Advaitadas (from a previous e-mail): “Can you show from other writings of the ācāryas that āropa siddha bhakti is not bhakti? I understood from svato bhaktitvabhāve'pi that it means that the activity in which is engaged is not really bhakti, and that it speaks of the activity rather than the attitude. Then bhaktitvam prāpta means the job is performed in a devotional mood so it becomes bhakti.”
Brajabhūṣaṇa Dās: “In whatever way we may understand 'svato bhaktitvabhāve'pi' I think we both agree that āropa-siddha-bhakti is something inferior to uttama bhakti. Now, if we are talking about someone doing uttama bhakti, then according to the ṭīkā I mentioned, all his activities fall under this, whether they are directly or indirectly done for Kṛṣṇa. You cannot say that a person is doing uttamā bhakti but his job is only āropa-siddha-bhakti, can you?
Just as the Pāṇḍavas. Did they have time for japa, kīrtan etc? No, they were busy managing the kingdom, fighting the enemies, meeting so many people adverse to bhakti etc, and still were considered such great bhaktas. They were engaged in their job, weren't they? Do you think it could be considered only āropa-siddha-bhakti? Of course not.
The same with gopīs, our highest ideal. Kṛṣṇa was very happy when they perfectly performed their job (= taking care of their family members, household chores etc), and not only when they met Him, danced with Him etc. They were not some sages living in an isolated place, doing japa, kīrtan, avoiding asat-sanga...
Now why do we have these kind of bhaktas as our ideal? You know very well that 'siddhasya yat svarūpaṁ sādhakasya tat sādhanam' (“What is natural for the siddha is exercise for the sādhaka”) We should thus follow their example, trying to imbibe it by daily practice. As you see, having a job and working is part of it.
Brajabhūṣaṇa Dās: I think that separating one's job from one's bhakti is one of the major mistakes of Western devotees. I don't have enough knowledge of Bhakti Sandarbha, so I can't argue in this direction, but I can do so in regard to BRS 1.1.11. The word kṛṣṇānuśīlanam refers to activities done directly or indirectly to Kṛṣṇa (kṛṣṇa-sambandhi kṛṣṇārthaṁ vānuśīlanam iti - tīkā by Viśvanātha and Jīva). A devotee who has taken dīkṣā and has surrendered in this way to guru and Kṛṣṇa does all his activities, directly or indirectly, to please these two. Thus by having a job he indirectly serves as by earning money he can maintain his body fit for service (buying food, paying for rent, electricity...) He can use the rest of his money for direct service, as agreed on with his Guru. Therefore, uttama-bhakti comprises all your activities. It's not that only chanting, kīrtan etc is bhakti and your going to work is not - providing, of course, that you keep your consciousness of a servant all the time.
Advaitadas: “If all of this would be included in uttamā bhakti, then why would Jīva Gosvāmī have made a distinction between svarūpa siddha, āropa siddha and saṅga siddha bhakti at all?”
Brajabhūṣaṇa Dās: “Although, as said, I don't have much knowledge of Bhakti Sandarbha, still I will try to explain, drawing on my Guruji's darśans and Sanskrit texts that are at my disposal (and that I can understand). It is very probable that in a treatise on bhakti its author would try to describe all kinds of bhakti. In reality there is only one real bhakti, and that is uttama bhakti, ie that which is done only for Kṛṣṇa's pleasure, without other motives (BRS 1.1.11). However, as it happens, people usually do have some motives and use bhakti to achieve their respective goals. Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī thus describes also these kinds of bhakti.
Speaking for example about āropa-siddha-bhakti, it's clear that this is not bhakti in itself (svato bhaktitvābhāve'pi) yet is considered to have the status of bhakti (bhaktitvaṁ prāptā) on account of offering one's work, etc, to Bhagavān (bhagavad-arpaṇādinā karmādi-rūpā). This kind of a person wants something from Bhagavān so he offers him his work (otherwise he wouldn't offer it). Thus, we can speak about āropa-siddha-bhakti in case of a material person who at least accepts that there is God but is yet far from attaining the stage when he will not want anything from Him, just please Him (far from the stage of uttamā bhakti). Basically it's karma-miśra-bhakti, not pure bhakti.
So the answer to your question is that in Bhakti Sandarbha Śrīla Jīva Gosvāmī wanted to show all kinds of bhakti (also those done by persons with various material motives) therefore he made this distinction. However, in his commentary on uttama bhakti (which isn't done by persons with material motives) in BRS 1.1.11 he doesn't speak about all these various kinds of bhakti, as the topic is uttama bhakti solely. There he says that the word 'anuśīlanam' means doing all your activities, directly or indirectly, favourably for Kṛṣṇa (kṛṣṇa-sambandhi kṛṣṇārthaṁ vānuśīlanam iti) which is possible if you are surrendered.”
Advaitadas: “Viśvanātha Cakravartīpāda clearly comments on Bhagavad Gītā 9.27 that offering all your activities is niṣkāma karma yoga, which does not culminate in kevala bhakti.”
Brajabhūṣaṇa Dās: “When I said that after surrendering to your Guruji all your activities are done directly or indirectly for pleasing him and Kṛṣṇa, I didn't mean by that offering your activities to Kṛṣṇa. In the very ṭīkā you mention (Bg. 9.27) it is said that in the highest bhakti it is not that you do work and then you offer (the result of) it. Rather, you offer yourself first (to Guru and Kṛṣṇa - at the time of dīkṣā) and then everything you do is automatically for Kṛṣṇa. (bhagavati viṣṇau bhaktiḥ kriyate, sā cārpitaiva satī yadi kriyeta, na tu kṛtā satī paścād arpyate) Because what happens if you work and offer it to Kṛṣṇa? By this you maintain your independence or separation from Guru or Kṛṣṇa. You don't want to surrender, you don't want to do what your Guru tells you - you just want to do what you want to, but at least you offer the work to Kṛṣṇa, so it's not as bad as someone who works and enjoys the fruit of his work without any regard for God. Still, it's not uttama bhakti. This working and offering it to Kṛṣṇa is āropa-siddha-bhakti (something like a first step of a material person towards devotional path) while wanting only to please Him, which includes all the activities of a surrendered disciple, is uttamā-bhakti, the highest bhakti. Clearly, these are two totally different phenomena, and we cannot apply things connected with a material person doing aropa-siddha-bhakti to a surrendered disciple doing uttama-bhakti. Therefore, in uttama bhakti there is no separation between your job (and similar 'material' things) and your bhakti. Imagine the situation of someone who has taken diksa - he wants to do all those devotional items but has only little time for it, as he has to work in order to survive, to say the least. He will be nervous that he spends so much time doing something which he thinks (as 'bhakta' nicely suggested) does not give pleasure to Radha and Kṛṣṇa. He will constantly live with this inner tension which will certainly not be very helpful in his devotional life and may account for a lot of frustration, or even leaving the path seeing the almost impossibility to dovetail his working life with his devotional life. Isn't it a big contrast to someone who understands that all his activities are for Kṛṣṇa and guru only? Such a person doesn't have this inner tension and can thus fully use his potential for service.”
Advaitadas: “What about all the expenses your non devotee children or non devotee wife make? What about taxes you have to pay which will be spent on mundane or sinful activities of the state? Is that also uttama bhakti? I know it all depends on the attitude, but if you know what some of your hard earned money is spent on, can you honestly offer that to Kṛṣṇa? When I was collecting for Iskcon, I believed this was uttama bhakti but when I found out that the gṛhasthas were using my blood sweat and tears for buying expensive ponies for their children and expensive jeeps and luxury cars for themselves, my uttama bhakti collapsed on the spot. I mean, you cannot just fake it, can you?”
Brajabhūṣaṇa Dās: “As a surrendered devotee I would never marry someone less surrendered or having other motives than pleasing guru or Kṛṣṇa. I agree with 'bhakta' that a (devotee-) marriage is no longer a prison, quite the contrary. As I said, to be able to serve you need to have money for buying food, paying rent... Usually people need a job to acquire it. So when you have a job you have to pay taxes - it's part of the system. If you don't pay them, you might run into trouble and get to prison - so how will you serve there? Therefore I see no difficulty in paying them. If they use them in an improper way, what can I do? It will be their bad karma, but I can go on serving. And, apart from that, while many people are corrupted, still I think the majority of tax money goes on civil servants' pay, pensions etc, otherwise the state couldn't function, so my paying of taxes contributes to the normal working of the society. I think Kṛṣṇa is happy when societies work well. Of course, all I do is with my Guruji in my mind. He never said a word against taxes. Rather, he always says that we live in a society and we need to follow the rules of that society. Only when you live without problems or conflicts with the society can your service fully be done.
I am sorry to hear about your bad experience with ISKCON. Your conviction was certainly ruined on finding out about jeeps etc and I imagine it must have been very painful. However, I think that now you realize that the fault was not in the philosophy of uttama bhakti itself. Rather, you were unlucky to serve unworthy Guru(s). Uttama bhakti can only be practised under a genuine guru, who is realized. There is no doubt that all the activities you do under his guidance are uttama bhakti, as He is Kṛṣṇa Himself guiding you in a human form.”
Brajabhūṣaṇa Dās writes in his following e-mail:
“If it happens though that you are married, have children, then you also have obligation towards them. In the same way as you have your obligation towards the society you have them towards your family members too. Of course it's very sad if you thus have to support beef-eaters etc but it IS your responsibility to take care of them, otherwise how will the society function. But, I think, people should do it just the way you do it - give them the minimum they need. My Guruji says that we SHOULD maintain our family commitments / relationships. For example, my parents are beef-eaters too, but I see no harm in helping them financially, since I am their son and they are my worshipable. In Kṛṣṇa-bhajanāmṛta it is said 'pitā gurur vā patir vā nirguṇo'pi pūjya eva' - even if they become devoid of good qualities they are worshipable. I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I support them as much as necessary and associate with them only as much as necessary.”
Advaitadas (from a previous e-mail): “Can you show from other writings of the ācāryas that āropa siddha bhakti is not bhakti? I understood from svato bhaktitvabhāve'pi that it means that the activity in which is engaged is not really bhakti, and that it speaks of the activity rather than the attitude. Then bhaktitvam prāpta means the job is performed in a devotional mood so it becomes bhakti.”
Brajabhūṣaṇa Dās: “In whatever way we may understand 'svato bhaktitvabhāve'pi' I think we both agree that āropa-siddha-bhakti is something inferior to uttama bhakti. Now, if we are talking about someone doing uttama bhakti, then according to the ṭīkā I mentioned, all his activities fall under this, whether they are directly or indirectly done for Kṛṣṇa. You cannot say that a person is doing uttamā bhakti but his job is only āropa-siddha-bhakti, can you?
Just as the Pāṇḍavas. Did they have time for japa, kīrtan etc? No, they were busy managing the kingdom, fighting the enemies, meeting so many people adverse to bhakti etc, and still were considered such great bhaktas. They were engaged in their job, weren't they? Do you think it could be considered only āropa-siddha-bhakti? Of course not.
The same with gopīs, our highest ideal. Kṛṣṇa was very happy when they perfectly performed their job (= taking care of their family members, household chores etc), and not only when they met Him, danced with Him etc. They were not some sages living in an isolated place, doing japa, kīrtan, avoiding asat-sanga...
Now why do we have these kind of bhaktas as our ideal? You know very well that 'siddhasya yat svarūpaṁ sādhakasya tat sādhanam' (“What is natural for the siddha is exercise for the sādhaka”) We should thus follow their example, trying to imbibe it by daily practice. As you see, having a job and working is part of it.
