Why might devotees learned in bhakti scriptures leave bhakti?

Podcast:

When those who are very well learned in scripture view bhakti, it makes us question: what is it that keeps one in bhakti? Is it intellectual understanding of scripture, or is it a service attitude? My understanding is that it is a personal relationship with Krishna, and it is a multi-lifetime journey. So, the very expectation that everyone should be able to stick to this for their entire life and attain perfection in this life—or even remain steadfast lifelong—and that this is the only standard of success, is, in my understanding, an over-expectation. Their experience of Krishna, even if it lasts only a few months or a few years—and not necessarily decades—is still a significant part of their life and spiritual evolution across lifetimes. It will guide them toward Krishna, if not in this life, then in a future life.

We often need to recognize that it is not a failure if someone practices bhakti only for some years in this lifetime. This entire journey over a lifetime is complex and hazardous. Having said that, is there any one thing that will ensure a person always stays in bhakti? I have my reservations about that. Ultimately, again, it is a personal relationship, and we want to reduce a complex phenomenon to a simple bullet-point explanation: that if I just follow this bullet point and that bullet point, I’ll be safe. No, it’s not that simple. It is between the individual and Krishna—and who knows?

For example, you might say that someone has a strong service attitude, but they may get exploited in the moment because of it. They may never leave bhakti, but is their success measured by the fact that they stayed despite exploitation? Maybe yes. But is the success of that moment what we want? Is the willingness to be exploited the price we expect people to pay to stay lifelong in bhakti?

No. Sometimes people leave. But leaving the moment does not necessarily mean leaving bhakti. Bhakti has many expressions. If they become atheists or something like that, then we might say they have left bhakti. But if they continue their practice of bhakti outside the moment or within another tradition, then I would not say they have abandoned living bhakti.

I think overemphasizing service attitude as an insurance policy—that this alone will keep you steady and strong in bhakti—may well mean expecting readiness to be exploited by some leaders or managers who make unreasonable demands. Such people sometimes need to be jolted out of their entitlement or unrealistic expectations that they can demand any level of surrender from subordinates.

Rather than judging why people leave, it is far more beneficial to ask what in our environment made it unbearable for them to practice bhakti and what we can do to change that environment. It is an extremely cultish mentality to find fault with those who leave, just so others don’t feel insecure about what we are doing.

Certainly, those who leave have defects—everyone does. If there is something we can learn from their experience, we definitely should. This requires a case-by-case study of the person and those who know them well. I don’t think we can make generic principles about this.

What about intellectual understanding? In many ways, my understanding is that our movement is not very conducive for those seriously interested in studying Shastra. There is a particular level of scholarship expected—the knowledge required mainly to proselytize and increase the numbers in our community. Beyond that, difficult questions are not welcomed.

If someone wants to study the prasacharya deeply and arrives at an understanding somewhat different from the current party line, it does not work well for them. We need to be very careful about this and allow people space. I know some young devotees who were thoughtful and intelligent but could not digest our criticism of evolution. I have talked with senior Prabhupada disciples, and even recorded podcasts where they said evolution is not a make-or-break issue in Krishna consciousness.

Even if someone accepts biological evolution, as long as they don’t claim the soul is biological or that consciousness arises from matter, there is room for acceptability. Many of our most intellectually proficient devotees have found more hospitable places in Gaudiya Math or academia than in ISKCON.

If we want to maintain the scholarly and intellectual dimension of our tradition, we as a movement must stop demonizing intellectually oriented devotees who ask hard questions as jnanis and deriding that which is their swabhava and swadharma. Those who want to study Shastra need not only time in their schedules but intellectual space to hold diverse opinions. Only then can progress be made.

From an individual perspective, intellectually oriented devotees should also know that intelligence can show us the path to bhakti, but it is not itself the path. Intelligence can help develop our relationship with Krishna, but intellectual understanding alone is not the same as a loving relationship with Krishna.

Once we understand this difference, intellectual devotees can have a well-rounded practice of bhakti by nurturing various dimensions of the relationship, having deep Vaishnav relationships, associating with devotees for mutual instruction and discussion, and learning to connect with Krishna through multiple channels—not just intellect.

If a devotee needs some intellectual association along with general devotee association, that is okay, but association remains essential.

So, rather than thinking a devotee falling away is a failure of bhakti, it is like a patient in a hospital who is on the path to cure. If a doctor suddenly succumbs to a disease and dies, we shouldn’t say the doctors were careless or didn’t wear masks properly. There must be serious introspection to understand the nature of the disease, the treatment process, and what mistakes were made.

It is a loss and needs to be carefully and holistically investigated.

This is my broad understanding.