What Does Bhakti Have to Do with Vedānta?

NOTHING, says a letter to the Bhaktivedanta Institute. EVERYTHING, Ravi Gomatam replies.

Puzzling Inconsistencies

The letter to the Institute

THE BROCHURE you sent me states,“Our in-house research uses paradigms for consciousness from the Bhāgavata tradition of Vedānta.” This statement is a source of confusion for me.

It is well known that the Vedas are divided into two sections, the first being the karma-kāṅḍa section and the last the jñāna-kāṅḍa section. The jñāna-kāṅḍa section is also called Vedānta (or “end of the Veda”).

The word “bhāgavata” means “one who is devoted to Bhagavata (the Lord).” The material relating to the “Bhāgavata tradition” and “bhakti” (devotion) is covered in the karma-kāṅḍa section of the Vedas and is not the subject of Vedānta.

Bhakti assumes a dualistic relationship between the devotee and the Lord whereas Vedānta is “advaita,” or nondualistic.

Therefore, I am confused by the name of your institute, “Bhaktivedanta,” since according to my understanding the words “bhakti” and “Vedānta” refer to separate teachings, with fundamental differences, that employ different methodologies.

My confusion is further augmented by the fact that there was a well-known swami, Swami Prabhupāda (who also went by the name A.C. Bhaktivedanta), who founded the Hare Krishna movement. As you no doubt know, the Hare Krishna society is a modern religious movement totally unrelated to traditional Vedānta.

When one studies traditional Vedānta, one learns that there is a clear distinction made between absolute reality (paramārthika) and empirical reality (vyavahārika). In this context, science is the study of empirical reality.

Traditional Vedānta teaches that the fundamental nature of everything (absolute reality) is consciousness (or awareness). Further, empirical reality is dependent on consciousness (absolute reality).

So if one subscribes to the teachings of traditional Vedānta it logically follows that science (the study of dependent reality) is subsumed by consciousness. Another way of saying this is that “science” is the “object” of the “subject” which is consciousness.

I am impressed that you have a highly competent staff, and I am puzzled by the philosophical inconsistencies that appear in the material you sent me.

I would very much appreciate your response to this letter.

Sincerely, Lee Kaplan Santa Barbara, California

The Purpose Of Vedānta

Ravi Gomatam, international secretary of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, responds

THE WORD Bhaktivedanta is not at all incongruous, popular understanding of bhakti and Vedānta notwithstanding.

There are two traditions of Vedānta—the impersonalist and the Vaiṣṅava. Both have existed since time immemorial. Śrīpāda Ādī Śaṅkarācārya is the best-known modern ācārya (teacher) of the impersonalist school, and Śrīpāda Rāmānujācārya, Śrīpāda Madhvācārya, and Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu are the best known modern ācāryas of the Vaiṣṅava school.

When the impersonalists speak of Vedānta, they generally refer to the Śārīraka-Bhāṣya of Śrīpāda Ādī Śaṅkarācārya. But this is not the only bhāṣya (commentary) on Vedānta-sūtra. There are outstanding commentaries by Vaiṣṅava ācāryas, such as the Śrī Bhāṣya of Rāmānujācārya, Govinda Bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṅa, and Tātparya Nirṅāyas of Madhvācārya.

Personalist Vedānta

The presence of the Vaiṣṅava commentaries refutes the popular notion that only one tradition studies Vedānta, while the other, called bhakti, has nothing to do with it. Bhakti, supposedly, is for the less intelligent (“people of the heart” is the usual cliche) while impersonalist jñāna is for the highly intellectual (and, by implication, more advanced).

But the truth is that every bona fide Vedic tradition is directly based on Vedānta. The two schools, therefore, are not jñāna and bhakti, as you mention, but Māyāvāda (impersonalist) and Vaiṣṅava (personalist).

It is therefore untrue that those who perform bhakti are devoid of knowledge. Rather, knowledge at its highest level culminates in devotion. This is confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā, which gives the essence of the Upaniṣads, which in turn form the basis of jñāna-kāṅḍa. Bahūnāṁ janmanām ante jñānavān māṁ prapadyate: After many births and deaths, the real jñānī surrenders to Vāsudeva, Lord Śrī Kṛṣṅa (Bg. 7.19).

In the twelfth chapter of Bhagavad-gītā, Arjuna asks which path is better, the impersonal or the personal. Lord Kṛṣṅa answers unambiguously that the personal path is better.

The personalist and impersonalist schools both follow practices of bhakti and of jñāna. Indeed, jñāna and bhakti are eternal characteristics of the conscious spirit soul. In the material world they are directed to the wrong objects, but in the spiritual world they are present in their pure form.

When we speak of Bhaktivedanta, therefore, we refer to the Vaiṣṅava (personalist) Vedānta tradition. We use the term deliberately, since Vedānta alone has come by usage to refer to the impersonalist school.

The first Bhaktivedanta commentary on Vedānta-sūtra was Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, written by the compiler of Vedānta-sūtra himself, Śrīla Vyāsadeva. Later Vaiṣṅava ācāryas further elaborated on the meaning of Vedānta by following in Śrīla Vyāsadeva’s footsteps.

Beyond Devotion to Demigods

Now, some of your objections are not just a matter of philosophical difference but are factually incorrect. For example, you say, “Bhakti is covered in the karma-kāṅḍa section of the Vedas and is not the subject of Vedānta.” Nowhere in the scriptures is this substantiated. The karma-kāṅḍa section of the Vedas concerns fruitive activities—that is, religious rituals performed for material rewards. These are technically called trai-guṅya-viṣayā vedā, or affairs of the three modes of material nature.

But bhakti is transcendental to the three modes and to fruitive mentalities. The beginning and fundamental tenet of bhakti is to serve the Supreme Lord without expectation of material rewards. How then can bhakti be a sub-ject of the karma-kāṅḍa section? What you might be confusing it with is the worship of the demigods—Lord Brahmā, Lord Śiva, Indra, Mother Pārvatī, Candra, etc.—which is indeed part of the karma-kāṅḍa section.

Traditional Vedānta

Such worship, however, is not properly called bhakti. It is simply worship within the three modes to obtain material benedictions. Worshipers of demigods are described in the Bhagavad-gītā as less intelligent (alpa-medhasām), and the fruits they receive are limited and temporary.

Bhakti is often thought to be a mere sentiment cultivated in relation to any object of worship (īṣṭa-devata). According to this idea, it is only a means to come to the higher platform of jñāna. Yet the scriptures do not support this definition of bhakti.

Bhakti properly refers only to service to God, not to any demigods. Therefore, bhakti is not an affair of the karma-kāṅḍa section.

You say,“Bhakti assumes a dualistic relationship, whereas Vedānta means advaita, or nondualistic.” This, however, is not stated anywhere in the Vedic scriptures. Vedānta is simply the study of the Supreme Brahman. That Supreme can be studied by either the monists or the Vaiṣṅavas. Otherwise, how is it that great Vaiṣṅava ācāryas have written commentaries on the Vedānta-sūtra?

You also assert that bhakti is not the subject of Vedānta. But in Bhagavad-gītā the Supreme Lord Himself declares, vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyaḥ: “By all the Vedas [and this naturally includes Vedānta], I am to be known.” The same truth is indicated in the beginning of the Vedānta-sūtra: athāto brahma jijñāsā. The very purpose of Vedānta is to inquire into the Supreme Braman. And inquiring into the Supreme Brahman ultimately leads to bhakti, or serving the Supreme Brahman, the Personality of Godhead.

The Hare Kṛṣṅa movement, you say, is a “modern movement totally unrelated to traditional Vedānta.” Here you are wrong on two counts.

First, the Hare Kṛṣṅa movement is not a modern movement, but is in the Vaiṣṅava tradition. It may be new, and hence modern, to Westerners, but not to us Indians. I was born a Vaiṣṅava, and I know that this is the ancient tradition and culture of India. Not only that, but the modern form of the Hare Kṛṣṅa movement as it is known in the West was inaugurated by Śrī Caitanya five hundred years ago in Bengal. So it can hardly be called modern in the sense of having a recent origin (though it may be called modern for being relevant to contemporary life).

Second, and more serious, you say that the Hare Kṛṣṅa movement is not at all connected to traditional Vedānta. I take it that you mean monistic Vedānta. The Hare Kṛṣṅa movement has nothing to do with monistic Vedānta but everything to do with traditional Vaiṣṅava Vedānta.

Science and Consciousness

The term Bhaktivedanta in our institute’s name refers to the Bhāgavata, or Vaiṣṅava, tradition of Vedānta. The Bhaktivedanta Institute is an autonomous institute dedicated to examining the relevance of the Bhāgavata concepts of consciousness to modern science.

His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda, the founder of the Hare Kṛṣṅa movement, inspired the formation of the Bhaktivedanta Institute. The word Bhaktivedanta in his name is a title awarded him in the 1930’s for presenting the Vaiṣṅava tradition of Vedānta authoritatively and clearly.

The institute, though autonomous, draws from the same spiritual tradition as the Kṛṣṅa consciousness movement, which was also founded by Śrīla Prabhupāda. The institute’s programs, however, are specifically in the realm of science and consciousness.

As for your final point concerning the nature of empiric reality and absolute reality—this touches the core of our scientific work. I would like to talk with you more about it once we clear this stage of our discussion.

Sincerely, Ravi Gomatam