Thank you for this Kunal! 🙏 while ashtanga yoga and Bhakti yoga both appear to be two completely separate paths that lead to the same goal, I can’t help but think that there must be aspects of both that need to be present in order to attain moksha. While ashtanga yoga is a very methodical and logical path towards achieving liberation, isn’t there some element of gods grace that also needs to be present? Or is it that because both paths require surrender, following either one naturally opens you up to gods grace? Also, it seems like following any one path naturally brings aspects of the other one into your awareness as well.
Hi Devanshi - this is a great question! In terms of the four Yogas, Bhakti and Raja Yoga are different only insofar as their degree of emphasis on different aspects. Specifically, Bhakti Yoga includes meditative practices in terms of dhaarana on the deity of choice, and Raja Yoga includes devotional practices within the purview of Ishvarpranidhaan. Within Raja Yoga, Ishvarpranidhaan comes up in three places - first as an optional preliminary method to calm the mind, second as a part of Kriya Yoga, and finally as a Niyama, where it is a mandatory part of the eight limbs.
Having said this, Ishvarpranidhaan can be devotional (ie. love for a specific form of the personal God), but it can also be a surrender without any conception of God. As you rightly pointed out, the core part of the practice is surrender, no matter how you get to it.
With some exceptions, you are also right in saying that both (ie. meditative practices) are necessary. Without surrender, the sense of “me” remains strong, and this is a blocker to samaadhi. Without meditation, the mind remains scattered, and this is also a blocker to samaadhi.
As it happens, we will go into more detail on the aspect of Ishvarpranidhaan this coming Wednesday, and continue the following week as well.
I hope this is helpful, and as always, please don’t hesitate to keep the conversation going :)
Thank you for this explanation! It's interesting, because in some ways Ishvarpranidhaan seems easier with Bhakti Yoga because it is all about full devotion and surrender. And it is easier to fully devote yourself when you have a particular Ishta devta in mind. But at the same time, it gets complicated because conflict arises in the mind about which Ishta devta to choose. And if this is not the case because you're naturally inclined or feel led toward any one particular Ishta devta, then how do you devote yourself to only one when the religion might be polytheistic like Hinduism? And how then do you also acknowledge Ishta devtas in other religions like Jesus, Buddha, Allah etc. This can cause some sense of guilt and confusion. It might just all be related to the ego, but it is still a very real challenge.
Also, while the devotional aspect of Bhakti Yoga is very appealing because it engages the emotions when you feel love and joy for any deity, doesn't this conflict with the idea of equanimity in Raja Yoga where you're not swayed in any direction by anything, especially your emotions?
These are great questions. Let me try to break it down:
1. How do you select an ishta-devataa, while overcoming feelings of guilt or confusion?
2. Does Bhakti conflict with the idea of equanimity?
On the first part, you are absolutely right in saying that Ishvarpranidhaan and Bhakti Yoga go together. In fact, Ishvarpranidhaan is an expression of Bhakti Yoga, and an excellent example of how traditional Bhakti practices can fit right in to Raja Yoga. It’s also a great observation that trying to select an ishta-devataa can be difficult.
From the perspective of Raja Yoga, a pull towards a particular ishta-devataa results from a continuous practice of svaadhyaay (Sutra 2.44: “svaadhyaayaad ishtadevataasamprayogah”). However, this takes time. There are other ways to solve for this as well - one is to get mantra-diksha from a Guru, or to follow your own existing tradition. This way, the mind does not waver, because the ishta-devataa has been chosen for you. But not all of us are this lucky - for some of us, we must find our own way (ie. Ishvar as the Guru). In this case, try writing down a few options for yourself, and stack ranking them - what do you feel most naturally drawn to?
Finally, the decision does not ultimately matter so much. The only thing that’s important is that you are drawn to the particular form - even if you cannot explain why. Ultimately, all the forms are simply representations of one Ishvar, and are a tool to draw your attention towards Ishvar. Whatever form you choose, the result is the same - the mind becomes “ishvar-ized” - the tendency of the mind becomes to go towards Ishvar.
In terms of the guilt and confusion, the way to overcome this is though a thorough understanding of what Ishvar means. Ishvar is Mayopahaitachaitanyam - Pure Consciousness with the limiting adjunct of Maya. Knowing this to be true, it becomes clear that the form you choose is just a tool, and not a matter of choosing one over another. This understanding also helps in terms of acknowledging the power of other ishta-devataas (e.g. Jesus, Allah (swt), Buddha, Kali, etc.). Through this understanding, one can see that all are just forms that are used as tools for the same goal.
Let’s use an analogy to make this clearer. Imagine you are walking around your house and you see some dust on the floor. You can do a few things - you can get a vacuum, you can get a broom, you can get a mop, or you could get a paper towel. All of them will do the same thing - clean the floor. You know in your heart that they are just tools to help you clean the floor, and so there is not much of a problem in picking one over the other. What’s more, when you pick the vacuum, you don’t feel guilty for not picking the broom! (this is actually not quite as trivial - if we anthropomorphize - ie. give personalities to - the tools, we may actually end up feeling guilty for picking one over the other). The goal is to understand - intellectually - what Ishvar means, and how it works as a tool towards liberation. Then the feeling of guilt or confusion becomes out of the question. This is easier said than done, which is why it may be helpful to follow an existing tradition or get mantra-diksha.
A quick side note here - “Hinduism” is not, strictly speaking, polythestic. There are atheist schools, agnostic schools, and henotheistic (ie. one primary God with the existence of other deities) and pantheistic schools, but in terms of Vedanta (and Advaita in particular), it is panentheistic - where God is both transcendent and immanent.
Now for the second question, around bhakti and equanimity. There is actually a word for the attachment one feels towards Ishvar, as opposed to the attachment one feels towards objects. When the attachment is for an object, it is called raag, but when the attachment is for Ishvar, it is called anuraag.
Raag is unhelpful, and causes the mind to become cloudy. Anuraag, on the other hand, clears up the mind and creates a feeling of expansiveness. This once again comes down to an understanding of what Ishvar means. If we think of our own personal ishta-devataa as the one, true God, then it is just like raag. This is tamasic, and results in anger, hatred, division, and conflict. On the other hand, if we know our ishta-devataa to be a tool for the mind to grasp Ishvar, just like all other ishta-devataas, then the raag is transformed into anuraag, and the mind starts to see beyond the form.
Swami Satchidananda tells a story where he was at Badrinath - a famous temple in India - praying at the statue of Badrinarayan. He was praying there every day, and one day, an American came up behind him in the temple and tapped him on the shoulder. When he turned to see who it was, the American asked, “what is it made of?” This question was shocking to Swami Satchidananda because he had never seen the statue as a statue, but had seen it as Ishvar. He goes on to give the example of when a Christian goes to church, and looks at the statue of Christ on the crucifix. If you ask someone “what is it made of?” the question will be shocking, since they see the form as Ishvar - not as a statue of stone, wood, and so on.
But this doesn’t quite get to the root of the question. In both scenarios - raag and anuraag - the mind is drawn towards something. So what makes anuraag better than raag? The difference is that with raag, the object is surrounded by the threefold suffering, but with anuraag, the object is not. Fundamentally, objects are impermanent. Ishvar, on the other hand, is Time Space and Causation Itself, and is cause - in a sense - of all objects. In this way, through raag, the person ends up suffering, but through anuraag, the person starts to see Ishvar in everything, resulting in a sense of expansiveness, extending the love generated for Ishvar towards everything. This love for everything results in a natural equanimity. How? The opposing thoughts to equanimity result from differentiation - ie. I like this more than I like that. With anuraag, through the practice of Ishvarpranidhaan, the love is extended to everything, since it is all ultimately Ishvar’s dance. What’s more, while raag strengthens the distinction between self and other, anuraag leads to the dissolution of the separate self (since it is a part of the whole which is the object of love). It is from this that the word “bhakti” comes - at its root - “bhaj” - it does not mean to “love” or to “worship”, but rather to “partake”
Finally, from an Ultimate (and particularly Advaitic) perspective, both raag and anuraag are a part of the world of duality - both require the subject-object relationship that underlies all suffering. However, anuraag is the second thorn, while raag is the first (ie. when you want to take out one thorn, you use a second thorn to take it out, and then throw away both thorns).
I know this was a bit lengthy, but hope it helps - please let me know if it didn’t scratch the itch!
Thank you very much!! that was very helpful!! I understand the analogy of using a second thorn to take out the first thorn as both raag and anuraag are a part of duality. Also, even though devotion and love for God involve our emotions, I can see how seeing Ishvar in everything and extending that love towards everything results in a natural equanimity, thus there is no conflict between Bhakti and the idea of equanimity. When it comes to the conflict that can arise when choosing an Ishta-devataa, I am still trying to figure out the source of that conflict. Intellectually, it makes complete sense that it doesn't matter who you choose, as ultimately, all Ishta-devataas are paths that lead to the same ultimate truth/Brahman. It seems almost silly to be conflicted about this, but the pull towards one Ishta-devataa feels so strong that I feel conflicted about having joined a Bhakti/meditation group that focuses on another Ishta-devataa. Even though I can sincerely acknowledge and pray to any Ishta-devataa, I cannot seem to fully devote or surrender myself to just any Ishta-devataa. This is the first time I've experienced a conflict like this, so it has really caught me off guard. The idea of "choosing one over another" doesn't seem right, yet that seems to be what I have already done. Maybe this conflict is something that eventually becomes obsolete as one goes further and further down the path of Bhakti until they reach the point of equanimity?
First of all, I’d like to point out that this conflict is totally normal, and quite common - even in Patanjali’s time. In fact, that is the purpose of the companion sutra to the Niyama of svaadhyaay - making it clear that through svaadhyaay, the clouds of uncertainty will clear away.
The source of this uncertainty is in our natural tendency to take naam-roop (name and form) seriously. As a result, investigating this very doubt can be a very fruitful exercise into the nature of mind, and therefore of reality.
From a practical standpoint, first of all, don’t feel guilty. Ishvar is one, and no matter what form you use, know that it is the same Ishvar to whom your bhakti is directed. You can imagine the ishta-devataa at your bhakti group to be another face of your own ishta-devataa. After all, Ishvar has many faces, and can appear however It pleases. Ishvar shows up as your husband, wife, friend, neighbor, child, and so on on a daily basis. Why should Ishvar not show up in this other form also?
Second, follow your heart. Bhakti is a matter of love, and it is this love that leads to focus - not the other way around. Investigate your tendencies carefully to see what you are more naturally drawn to, and surrender yourself in that direction. If this doesn’t happen now, it will happen eventually, even if right now it seems difficult.
Finally, keep asking questions. This does not have to do with your initial question, but it may be worth mentioning. Sometimes, different groups may follow a particular path of inquiry, leading to confusion if one is not established in one path or another. This is not to say that one is right and another is wrong, but just to make sure you are rigorous in your approach, passing everything through the filter of your own intellect before taking it as truth, whether you read it here or elsewhere. For example, Shiva-focused schools may have a philosophical basis in the Trika philosophy, while Krishna-focused schools may have a basis in achintyabhedabhed. Both are true, and ultimately lead to the same place, but as practitioners, being aware of the implications that may come with groups that focus on one Ishta-devataa over another is helpful so that we know what to take with a grain of salt.
I hope this helps! Apologies for the delayed response, and as always, please don’t hesitate with any more questions, objections, or feedback 🙏🏽
Thank you very much for this explanation! It is extremely helpful! I agree, I think the key is to ask questions and I've noticed over time that the more I ask the questions that are swirling around in my head and the more I get clarity from the answers that are given to me, the easier it is to fully absorb the teachings. I have never heard of the Trika philosophy or achintyabhedabhed before so thank you for mentioning them. I will look into both - I think that will be very helpful as well.
Thank you for this Kunal! 🙏 while ashtanga yoga and Bhakti yoga both appear to be two completely separate paths that lead to the same goal, I can’t help but think that there must be aspects of both that need to be present in order to attain moksha. While ashtanga yoga is a very methodical and logical path towards achieving liberation, isn’t there some element of gods grace that also needs to be present? Or is it that because both paths require surrender, following either one naturally opens you up to gods grace? Also, it seems like following any one path naturally brings aspects of the other one into your awareness as well.
Hi Devanshi - this is a great question! In terms of the four Yogas, Bhakti and Raja Yoga are different only insofar as their degree of emphasis on different aspects. Specifically, Bhakti Yoga includes meditative practices in terms of dhaarana on the deity of choice, and Raja Yoga includes devotional practices within the purview of Ishvarpranidhaan. Within Raja Yoga, Ishvarpranidhaan comes up in three places - first as an optional preliminary method to calm the mind, second as a part of Kriya Yoga, and finally as a Niyama, where it is a mandatory part of the eight limbs.
Having said this, Ishvarpranidhaan can be devotional (ie. love for a specific form of the personal God), but it can also be a surrender without any conception of God. As you rightly pointed out, the core part of the practice is surrender, no matter how you get to it.
With some exceptions, you are also right in saying that both (ie. meditative practices) are necessary. Without surrender, the sense of “me” remains strong, and this is a blocker to samaadhi. Without meditation, the mind remains scattered, and this is also a blocker to samaadhi.
As it happens, we will go into more detail on the aspect of Ishvarpranidhaan this coming Wednesday, and continue the following week as well.
I hope this is helpful, and as always, please don’t hesitate to keep the conversation going :)
Thank you for this explanation! It's interesting, because in some ways Ishvarpranidhaan seems easier with Bhakti Yoga because it is all about full devotion and surrender. And it is easier to fully devote yourself when you have a particular Ishta devta in mind. But at the same time, it gets complicated because conflict arises in the mind about which Ishta devta to choose. And if this is not the case because you're naturally inclined or feel led toward any one particular Ishta devta, then how do you devote yourself to only one when the religion might be polytheistic like Hinduism? And how then do you also acknowledge Ishta devtas in other religions like Jesus, Buddha, Allah etc. This can cause some sense of guilt and confusion. It might just all be related to the ego, but it is still a very real challenge.
Also, while the devotional aspect of Bhakti Yoga is very appealing because it engages the emotions when you feel love and joy for any deity, doesn't this conflict with the idea of equanimity in Raja Yoga where you're not swayed in any direction by anything, especially your emotions?
These are great questions. Let me try to break it down:
1. How do you select an ishta-devataa, while overcoming feelings of guilt or confusion?
2. Does Bhakti conflict with the idea of equanimity?
On the first part, you are absolutely right in saying that Ishvarpranidhaan and Bhakti Yoga go together. In fact, Ishvarpranidhaan is an expression of Bhakti Yoga, and an excellent example of how traditional Bhakti practices can fit right in to Raja Yoga. It’s also a great observation that trying to select an ishta-devataa can be difficult.
From the perspective of Raja Yoga, a pull towards a particular ishta-devataa results from a continuous practice of svaadhyaay (Sutra 2.44: “svaadhyaayaad ishtadevataasamprayogah”). However, this takes time. There are other ways to solve for this as well - one is to get mantra-diksha from a Guru, or to follow your own existing tradition. This way, the mind does not waver, because the ishta-devataa has been chosen for you. But not all of us are this lucky - for some of us, we must find our own way (ie. Ishvar as the Guru). In this case, try writing down a few options for yourself, and stack ranking them - what do you feel most naturally drawn to?
Finally, the decision does not ultimately matter so much. The only thing that’s important is that you are drawn to the particular form - even if you cannot explain why. Ultimately, all the forms are simply representations of one Ishvar, and are a tool to draw your attention towards Ishvar. Whatever form you choose, the result is the same - the mind becomes “ishvar-ized” - the tendency of the mind becomes to go towards Ishvar.
In terms of the guilt and confusion, the way to overcome this is though a thorough understanding of what Ishvar means. Ishvar is Mayopahaitachaitanyam - Pure Consciousness with the limiting adjunct of Maya. Knowing this to be true, it becomes clear that the form you choose is just a tool, and not a matter of choosing one over another. This understanding also helps in terms of acknowledging the power of other ishta-devataas (e.g. Jesus, Allah (swt), Buddha, Kali, etc.). Through this understanding, one can see that all are just forms that are used as tools for the same goal.
Let’s use an analogy to make this clearer. Imagine you are walking around your house and you see some dust on the floor. You can do a few things - you can get a vacuum, you can get a broom, you can get a mop, or you could get a paper towel. All of them will do the same thing - clean the floor. You know in your heart that they are just tools to help you clean the floor, and so there is not much of a problem in picking one over the other. What’s more, when you pick the vacuum, you don’t feel guilty for not picking the broom! (this is actually not quite as trivial - if we anthropomorphize - ie. give personalities to - the tools, we may actually end up feeling guilty for picking one over the other). The goal is to understand - intellectually - what Ishvar means, and how it works as a tool towards liberation. Then the feeling of guilt or confusion becomes out of the question. This is easier said than done, which is why it may be helpful to follow an existing tradition or get mantra-diksha.
A quick side note here - “Hinduism” is not, strictly speaking, polythestic. There are atheist schools, agnostic schools, and henotheistic (ie. one primary God with the existence of other deities) and pantheistic schools, but in terms of Vedanta (and Advaita in particular), it is panentheistic - where God is both transcendent and immanent.
Now for the second question, around bhakti and equanimity. There is actually a word for the attachment one feels towards Ishvar, as opposed to the attachment one feels towards objects. When the attachment is for an object, it is called raag, but when the attachment is for Ishvar, it is called anuraag.
Raag is unhelpful, and causes the mind to become cloudy. Anuraag, on the other hand, clears up the mind and creates a feeling of expansiveness. This once again comes down to an understanding of what Ishvar means. If we think of our own personal ishta-devataa as the one, true God, then it is just like raag. This is tamasic, and results in anger, hatred, division, and conflict. On the other hand, if we know our ishta-devataa to be a tool for the mind to grasp Ishvar, just like all other ishta-devataas, then the raag is transformed into anuraag, and the mind starts to see beyond the form.
Swami Satchidananda tells a story where he was at Badrinath - a famous temple in India - praying at the statue of Badrinarayan. He was praying there every day, and one day, an American came up behind him in the temple and tapped him on the shoulder. When he turned to see who it was, the American asked, “what is it made of?” This question was shocking to Swami Satchidananda because he had never seen the statue as a statue, but had seen it as Ishvar. He goes on to give the example of when a Christian goes to church, and looks at the statue of Christ on the crucifix. If you ask someone “what is it made of?” the question will be shocking, since they see the form as Ishvar - not as a statue of stone, wood, and so on.
But this doesn’t quite get to the root of the question. In both scenarios - raag and anuraag - the mind is drawn towards something. So what makes anuraag better than raag? The difference is that with raag, the object is surrounded by the threefold suffering, but with anuraag, the object is not. Fundamentally, objects are impermanent. Ishvar, on the other hand, is Time Space and Causation Itself, and is cause - in a sense - of all objects. In this way, through raag, the person ends up suffering, but through anuraag, the person starts to see Ishvar in everything, resulting in a sense of expansiveness, extending the love generated for Ishvar towards everything. This love for everything results in a natural equanimity. How? The opposing thoughts to equanimity result from differentiation - ie. I like this more than I like that. With anuraag, through the practice of Ishvarpranidhaan, the love is extended to everything, since it is all ultimately Ishvar’s dance. What’s more, while raag strengthens the distinction between self and other, anuraag leads to the dissolution of the separate self (since it is a part of the whole which is the object of love). It is from this that the word “bhakti” comes - at its root - “bhaj” - it does not mean to “love” or to “worship”, but rather to “partake”
Finally, from an Ultimate (and particularly Advaitic) perspective, both raag and anuraag are a part of the world of duality - both require the subject-object relationship that underlies all suffering. However, anuraag is the second thorn, while raag is the first (ie. when you want to take out one thorn, you use a second thorn to take it out, and then throw away both thorns).
I know this was a bit lengthy, but hope it helps - please let me know if it didn’t scratch the itch!
Thank you very much!! that was very helpful!! I understand the analogy of using a second thorn to take out the first thorn as both raag and anuraag are a part of duality. Also, even though devotion and love for God involve our emotions, I can see how seeing Ishvar in everything and extending that love towards everything results in a natural equanimity, thus there is no conflict between Bhakti and the idea of equanimity. When it comes to the conflict that can arise when choosing an Ishta-devataa, I am still trying to figure out the source of that conflict. Intellectually, it makes complete sense that it doesn't matter who you choose, as ultimately, all Ishta-devataas are paths that lead to the same ultimate truth/Brahman. It seems almost silly to be conflicted about this, but the pull towards one Ishta-devataa feels so strong that I feel conflicted about having joined a Bhakti/meditation group that focuses on another Ishta-devataa. Even though I can sincerely acknowledge and pray to any Ishta-devataa, I cannot seem to fully devote or surrender myself to just any Ishta-devataa. This is the first time I've experienced a conflict like this, so it has really caught me off guard. The idea of "choosing one over another" doesn't seem right, yet that seems to be what I have already done. Maybe this conflict is something that eventually becomes obsolete as one goes further and further down the path of Bhakti until they reach the point of equanimity?
First of all, I’d like to point out that this conflict is totally normal, and quite common - even in Patanjali’s time. In fact, that is the purpose of the companion sutra to the Niyama of svaadhyaay - making it clear that through svaadhyaay, the clouds of uncertainty will clear away.
The source of this uncertainty is in our natural tendency to take naam-roop (name and form) seriously. As a result, investigating this very doubt can be a very fruitful exercise into the nature of mind, and therefore of reality.
From a practical standpoint, first of all, don’t feel guilty. Ishvar is one, and no matter what form you use, know that it is the same Ishvar to whom your bhakti is directed. You can imagine the ishta-devataa at your bhakti group to be another face of your own ishta-devataa. After all, Ishvar has many faces, and can appear however It pleases. Ishvar shows up as your husband, wife, friend, neighbor, child, and so on on a daily basis. Why should Ishvar not show up in this other form also?
Second, follow your heart. Bhakti is a matter of love, and it is this love that leads to focus - not the other way around. Investigate your tendencies carefully to see what you are more naturally drawn to, and surrender yourself in that direction. If this doesn’t happen now, it will happen eventually, even if right now it seems difficult.
Finally, keep asking questions. This does not have to do with your initial question, but it may be worth mentioning. Sometimes, different groups may follow a particular path of inquiry, leading to confusion if one is not established in one path or another. This is not to say that one is right and another is wrong, but just to make sure you are rigorous in your approach, passing everything through the filter of your own intellect before taking it as truth, whether you read it here or elsewhere. For example, Shiva-focused schools may have a philosophical basis in the Trika philosophy, while Krishna-focused schools may have a basis in achintyabhedabhed. Both are true, and ultimately lead to the same place, but as practitioners, being aware of the implications that may come with groups that focus on one Ishta-devataa over another is helpful so that we know what to take with a grain of salt.
I hope this helps! Apologies for the delayed response, and as always, please don’t hesitate with any more questions, objections, or feedback 🙏🏽
Thank you very much for this explanation! It is extremely helpful! I agree, I think the key is to ask questions and I've noticed over time that the more I ask the questions that are swirling around in my head and the more I get clarity from the answers that are given to me, the easier it is to fully absorb the teachings. I have never heard of the Trika philosophy or achintyabhedabhed before so thank you for mentioning them. I will look into both - I think that will be very helpful as well.