Dharma, Devotion, And The Bhagavatam

S.B. 1.2.6

sa vai puḿsāḿ paro dharmo

yato bhaktir adhokṣaje

ahaituky apratihatā

yayātmā suprasīdati

‘The supreme dharma for all humanity is that by which men can attain to loving devotional service unto the transcendent Lord. Such devotional service must be unmotivated and uninterrupted to completely satisfy the self’.

Most narratives in Indian religious literature take the form of questions and answers. The Bhagavatam is no exception to this trend. In this verse, the speaker, Suta Goswami, begins his attempt to answer the questions put to him by the sages of Naimisaranya. Saunaka Rishi, elected by the sages to speak on their behalf, put forward six questions that he felt the speaker, Suta Goswami, was particularly qualified to answer.    

Before I turn to inspect this verse in more detail, let’s have a quick look at the Rishi’s six questions. He commences his series of questions by requesting the speaker to explain what he has ascertained to be the absolute and ultimate good for the people in general. In his second question, the Rishi invites the speaker to ‘select the essence of all [the] scriptures and explain it for the good of all living beings, that by such instruction their hearts may be fully satisfied’. In the third question, Saunaka Rishi, expresses his desire to hear the wonderful sports of Krishna by asking why Krishna decided to appear as the son of Devaki and Vasudeva. According to Viswanath Chakravarti Thakur’s commentary, the Rishi’s fourth question constitutes an inquiry into the lila’s of Bhagavan’s avataras or incarnations. In his penultimate question, Saunaka Rishi, requests Suta to elucidate the different incarnations of God and explain their significance. Saunaka Rishi concludes his series of questions by asking ‘since Sri Krishna, the Absolute Truth, the master of all mystic powers, has departed for his own abode, please tell us to whom the religious principles have now gone for shelter’.

According to Vishwanath Chakravarti, the Bhagavatam itself (that is, all 18,000 verses of it) constitutes an attempt to answer, in detail, the aforementioned six questions. In other words, through the medium of stories, narratives, conversations, and so on, the Bhagavatam tries, (and succeeds remarkably, if I may say so) to address the sages’ inquiries and, in so doing, equips us all with the knowledge and understanding by which we can deepen our relationship with God and heighten our state of consciousness.

 

Text number six, that is, the verse under inspection, constitutes Suta Goswami’s attempt to answer Saunaka Rishi’s first question. So, according to Goswami, the ultimate and absolute good of humanity is best served by engaging in Bhagavan’s devotional service, or bhakti. The Sanskrit phrase used here is paro dharma, which literally means supreme occupation. The lucidity of the verse helps to enhance its edifying value; the message here is clear- bhakti reigns supreme and as the paro dharma or the supreme occupation, engagement in it serves to promote the interests and welfare of all. By equating the paro dharma with bhakti, this verse appears to be saying something significant about the nature of alternative religious experience and its subservience to bhakti.

What I mean, is that, by definition at least, there can only be one supreme occupation or paro dharma and if that’s bhakti, the implication that follows is that alternative religious practices, such as karma yoga or Jnana yoga, cannot be said to enjoy this supreme status, regardless of how important they are in the eyes of their practitioners. This proposition may come across to many as being quite parochial or even dogmatic. After all the ineffability of religious experience and the myriad religious dispositions that exist, all seem to suggest that no one religious path can be considered supreme. I think, there is a degree of validity to this view and it would be imprudent to dismiss it outright. In many ways, of course, the Bhagavad Gita appears to lend itself quite congenially to such an interpretation; by detailing the nature of different religious practices and demonstrating how they should be performed properly, the Gita seems to be embracing the idea that all genuine religious practices share equally in the capacity to uplift, enlighten and liberate.

This conclusion is nice and comforting, not least because it paves the way for greater tolerance and broadmindedness among different religious traditions. The alternative conclusion, that there is one supreme religious path, appears to offend our post-modern sensibilities, which caution against parochialism and the acceptance of objective truths. As heartening as this conclusion is, I don’t necessarily think that it represents the original intent and spirit of our religious literatures. Of course, by writing in this way, I render myself vulnerable to the challenge that I can’t possibly know what the original intent and spirit of our literature is; and given the myriad commentaries that exist on our texts, claiming to possess inside knowledge of this nature does, I readily admit, make me sound rather presumptuous!

I don’t want to expend too much time on this issue; you’re either for the view that you can discover the proper import of a text by dedicated religious practice and adherence to past saints and teachers or simply against it. I would, however, argue, that at least where the Bhagavad Gita is concerned, the Vaishnava conclusion that bhakti supersedes all other religious paths does seem to constitute the most natural and plausible interpretation of the text (look, for instance at Chapter 6 at verse 47, where the superiority of devotion is unequivocally affirmed). The centrality of bhakti to religious experience is also acknowledged by some of the non-theistic traditions of India; foremost among such traditions is the path of Advaita Vedanta, popularized many centuries ago by the great thinker Sripad Adi Sankaracharya. Sankara, himself, recognizes the importance of bhakti by rendering jnananistha or fidelity to knowledge (without which mukti is unobtainable) conditional on the result of bhakti (Sankara’s Gita Bhasya).

So to recap, I’ve been making the point that according to the verse under inspection (S.B. 1.2.6) bhakti constitutes the paro dharma or the supreme occupation. I tried to draw out the implications of this proposition by arguing that if any conclusion is entailed by this verse, it is most obviously the idea that religious practice can be graded or hierarchically arranged, such, that bhakti or devotional service to God constitutes the apogee of religious experience and practice. There is, of course, an additional aspect to this verse that I want to consider but before I do that, lets look more closely at the nature of bhakti.

What I write now will overlap, at least to some extent, with some of the content of my previous post. I apologize if you find this repetition annoying but I hope that by the end of the post you see some utility in it. If bhakti constitutes the paro dharma, as this verse claims, it’s important to know something about its nature. The definition of bhakti that I offered in my previous post sought to express Rupa Goswami’s understanding of devotion as he articulates it in his remarkable work on bhakti, the Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu. I want to spend a bit of time looking at this definition in a bit more detail. Again, I remind you that there will be some overlap here with yesterday’s post but I hope that you’ll enjoy this journey of discovery into devotion.

Let me begin by quoting a translation of Rupa Goswami’s definition of bhakti:

‘The cultivation of activities that are meant exclusively for the pleasure of Sri Krishna, performed through all endeavors of the body, mind and speech, and which is not covered by jnana (knowledge aimed at liberation) and karma (reward-seeking activity), and which is devoid of all desires other than the aspiration to bring happiness to Sri Krishna, is called uttama-bhakti, pure devotional service.’

Many of the ideas expressed in this verse are self-explanatory. There are, however, certain words or concepts that are in need of further clarification. The first part of this verse underscores a point that I made in my previous post; it grants legitimacy to Prabhupada’s translation of bhakti as devotional service since it instructs us that bhakti requires ‘cultivation’ or anusilana. Cultivation in this context means engagement in some form of devotional expression and understood thus, bhakti requires more than a particular state of mind. In fact, in his summary study of the Bhakti Rasamrita Sindhu, Prabhupada expresses this idea incisively: ‘this devotional service is a sort of cultivation. It is not simply inaction for people who like to be inactive or devote their time to silent meditation’.

Bhakti itself, of course, is dynamic and enables itself to be expressed in a variety of ways. In the Bhagavatam itself, the precocious Prahlad enumerates nine practices of bhakti that he regards as being particularly potent in respect of their ability to bestow prema or love for God. Foremost among these nine practices are shravanam (hearing the glories and pastimes of God), kirtanam (reciting the divine names of God) and smaranam (remembering God and his pastimes). The practice of bhakti produces immeasurable amounts of bliss and brings us in touch with the deepest core of our very being. When asked to identify the sva dharma or the constitutional position of the jivatma (the individual being), Chaitanya Mahaprabhu responded with the following: ‘jivera swarupa hoye Krishna nitya das’. Essentially, the crux of Chaitanya’s response is that all of us, whether we acknowledge it or not, are servants of God and so service to him constitutes our most natural occupation. The joyful nature of bhakti is therefore explicable on this basis; practicing bhakti reengages us with our eternal occupation and reinforces our everlasting relationship with God.

 

Thus far, I’ve described the positive aspects of bhakti, i.e. what it consists in. Rupa Goswami’s verse, however, begins by instructing us on what pure devotion is not. Two important terms that he uses are: anyabhilasita-sunyam and jnana-karmady-anavrtam. Let’s explore these two terms in greater detail. The first term- anyabhilasita-sunyam – entails the idea that a pure devotee should cultivate his or her bhakti with only one objective in mind- that of attaining prema bhakti­ or pure devotion. The implication here is that bhakti should only be performed for the sake of bhakti. As the Bhagavatam instructs: ‘bhaktya sanjataya bhaktya’ bhakti is produced only by bhakti. If, while engaging in bhakti, our interest is in obtaining something extraneous to bhakti, we’re not engaging in pure devotion. Instead, what we’re practicing is an adulterated form of devotion that, though initially useful, can never grant us pure devotion unto God.

In the second term, jnana-karmady-anavrtam, Rupa Goswami seeks to express the idea that pure devotion should not be encumbered with the desire for knowledge (jnana) and an interest in engaging in reward-seeking activity (karma). The idea that karma or an interest in it can problematize the practice of pure devotion is easier to accept; after all, such activity tends to stimulate desire for material goods and strengthens our material attachment. I suspect that what many would find more difficult to accept is the suggestion that the desire for knowledge impairs the quality of devotion. In order to clarify what’s going on here we’ve got to distinguish between different types of knowledge and consider which type is being discouraged in the present verse.

What is clearly not being discouraged in the present verse is knowledge of God’s nature (which entails his pastimes and so on). This sort of knowledge is essential insofar, as without it, devotion itself becomes meaningless; after all, how can you possibly be devoted to somebody you don’t know! What Rupa Goswami is trying to discourage here is interest in knowledge that results in monistic union in God or liberation. This sort of knowledge has been extolled in certain sections of India’s religious literature, but Rupa Goswami wants nothing to do with it. Knowledge that results in monistic union with God is anathema to the ideals of pure devotion; devotion, properly so called, requires the existence of two entities- the object of devotion and the devotee. If devotion is to endure past the stage of liberation, the individuality of the devotee must endure; if there is any union, it must be a mystical one based on deep love and mutual affection. Pure devotion permits no other kind of union.