Why is bhakti, especially as presented by our movement, seen by many as non-intellectual or even anti-intellectual?
Why is Bhakti often perceived as non-intellectual or even anti-intellectual—especially within ISKCON? Isn’t this different from Rupa Goswami’s presentation of Bhakti? Why this perception and this deviation from the traditional understanding?
We can classify the reasons for this perception into three broad categories:
- The overall perception of spirituality in India
- The way Bhakti has been presented within ISKCON
- The historical interactions between different philosophical traditions
1. Perceptions of Spirituality in India
Traditionally, spirituality in India has been categorized into three main paths: karma, jnana, and bhakti.
- Karma focuses on improving the material world through actions—either through Vedic rituals (like worship of devatas) or through modern methods (like technology).
- Jnana involves understanding the illusory nature of the world and becoming detached from it; it is associated with vairagya (renunciation) and intellectual contemplation.
- Bhakti is the path of devotion to a transcendental Lord, emphasizing love and surrender.
While karma also includes worship, it is often world-affirming. In contrast, bhakti is world-transcending, as is jnana. However, jnana is traditionally seen as the path pursued by intellectuals, which naturally appeals to those with a more analytical mindset—just as a PhD in mathematics prefers content suited to their intellectual level rather than high school textbooks.
Bhakti may sometimes resemble karma externally—devotees worship actively, often with emotion and rituals. But while karma is about loving what God gives, bhakti is loving God for who He is. Both may appear similar from the outside, but the underlying intent differs. Since these subtle distinctions are not always obvious, bhakti can appear to be sentimental, and sometimes is mistakenly equated with karma.
Moreover, bhakti has always been a mass movement, whereas jnana, due to its esoteric nature, has a smaller but more intellectually elite following. Over time, even jnanis have incorporated bhakti into their systems—as a means to the end of jnana (i.e., moksha)—to reach a broader audience.
Because the majority of bhaktas are not intellectuals (even though some are), the general perception arises that bhakti is non-intellectual.
2. Historical Factors Reinforcing This Perception
During India’s freedom struggle, there was a desire to present Indian spirituality as a unifying force. In this context, jnana was emphasized as universal and elevating, while bhakti was seen as sectarian and thus divisive.
This was due in part to the association of jnana with the philosophy of monism, especially in its simplified form (e.g., Mayavada), which became popular among intellectual leaders and reformers of the independence movement. They saw jnana as the path for thinkers, karma for workers, yoga for ascetics, and bhakti for the emotional or sentimental.
Now, everyone is driven by emotions, more than we care to admit. Yet, being labeled as “emotional” often implies being irrational or immature. Thus, to say bhakti is for the emotional subtly diminishes its credibility and reinforces the idea that it is intellectually inferior.
In popular culture, bhakti saints like Mirabai and Kabir became household names, whereas great acharyas like Madhvacharya or Ramanujacharya—who offered deep philosophical presentations—remained less known to the masses. This skewed the image of bhakti toward emotional expression rather than intellectual depth.
3. Bhakti in the Gaudiya and ISKCON Tradition
Within the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, we have towering intellectuals like Rupa Goswami and Jiva Goswami, who laid a profound philosophical foundation for bhakti. Jiva Goswami, in particular, is known as the Siddhanta Acharya for his scholarly rigor.
In ISKCON, Srila Prabhupada wrote many books and strongly emphasized philosophical education. However, he also criticized jnana, especially in the form of Mayavada. While his criticism was directed at impersonalism, it was sometimes perceived—or presented—as a rejection of all intellectualism outside ISKCON’s framework.
This has contributed to a culture where devotees are focused on the path of bhakti (which is good), but sometimes dismissive of other paths (which is problematic). The result is that even with limited understanding, some devotees speak with great certainty and caricature other traditions, creating the impression of superficial dogmatism rather than thoughtful conviction.
While the average ISKCON devotee may have more scriptural knowledge than many religious practitioners, this may not always match the depth of scholarship found in other traditions. And within ISKCON, our most scholarly voices are often not the most visible ones, which affects the public perception.
4. What Can Be Done?
One of the core values of bhakti is respect (amanina manadena).
- Srila Prabhupada himself modeled respectful engagement. Though he refuted incorrect philosophies, he respected sincere practitioners from other traditions, such as his friendly and respectful dealings with Dr. Mishra, a yogi and impersonalist.
- We should learn to see value in other traditions, and avoid oversimplifying or ridiculing them.
- Not all presentations need to be scholarly, but a balance is needed—mass outreach for the masses and nuanced depth for the thoughtful.
- Those engaged in deep Shastric study within ISKCON have a special responsibility to:
- Develop balanced, respectful, and nuanced presentations
- Share such insights more widely
- Avoid rigid black-and-white thinking (0 or 1)
- Represent not just the devotional depth of bhakti, but also its intellectual depth
This approach may not stroke the ego by making us feel superior, but it will satisfy the heart—by deepening our relationships with others and enriching our service to Krishna.
Above all, it will help us become better representatives of our tradition, just as Rupa and Jiva Goswamis envisioned—a tradition where bhakti and intellectual rigor are not opposites, but complementary.