When we multitask do we miss something as we switch from one thing to the next?
Well, definitely, this is not an elementary question. It’s an important and complicated question. When we multitask, are we basically just switching our attention? And is that why we miss things? That’s often why multitasking is seen as ineffective.
But when we chant the holy name purely, we are hearing the holy name while also meditating on Krishna’s pastimes. Is that multitasking? Sometimes we seem able to multitask without really switching attention. I find it’s not very advisable to absolutize anything in the material domain because there is a lot of variety among different people.
First, each person is different. So if you say multitasking always causes missing things, well, we are always missing things anyway. For example, our eyes blink constantly, but we don’t notice it. Are we missing something during that blink? Yes, but our eyes are designed so that what we miss is not consequential.
Similarly, in kirtan, if someone is playing kartal and singing at the same time, are they not multitasking? Should we then make a rule that anyone singing should not play an instrument, and anyone playing an instrument should not sing? When we do kirtan, we are dancing and singing simultaneously. Isn’t that multitasking? Moving our hands while singing?
So, I think the bad press that multitasking gets is a bit unfair. Yes, we shift attention, but that’s what we are constantly doing. Right now, you are hearing me speak, and you might also be seeing how I look or what I’m doing. Among all senses, only the eyes can be consciously controlled and turned off. We can’t close our nose or ears easily, or shut off our sense of touch. So sensory information is constantly coming in from all directions.
If I’m speaking in a room and there is some noise behind me, unless it is very disruptive, I notice it but don’t necessarily register or focus on it. If I did spend time wondering about that noise, I might get distracted. So distraction or switching becomes a problem only if it is slow or prolonged.
Otherwise, we cannot survive without switching. Our mind takes input from all senses and decides which to focus on. We are always multitasking in that sense. When we talk about multitasking, we usually mean actively engaging multiple tasks or sensory inputs at once.
For example, should someone never hear a class or talk to someone while driving? It depends. A new driver needs more focus, so talking can be risky. But a seasoned driver can talk and drive simultaneously. Are they multitasking? Yes.
For many devotees, listening to classes while commuting may be the only way they get time to study. So I don’t appreciate the constant negative bias against multitasking.
Having said that, we all need to be honest with ourselves and recognize when multitasking causes a significant loss of attention or important details. That judgment is individual. Some people have a greater capacity to do many things at once. Just like lifting weights — someone strong may find lifting small weights boring, so they challenge themselves more. Similarly, some have higher cognitive capacity and can multitask better.
Now, is it multitasking when we chant and at the same time try to remember Krishna’s form? I’m not sure we can directly apply material psychological concepts to spiritual practices. Why not? Because there is unity and integrity in Krishna — His name and form are non-different.
Right now, in our limited consciousness, one may lead to the other — Krishna’s name may remind us of His form, or vice versa. So you could say we switch attention back and forth, which looks like multitasking. But at the spiritual level, realizing the non-difference between Krishna’s name and Krishna Himself, I hesitate to call it multitasking — that’s applying a material framework where it may not fit.
During chanting, we are sometimes told to focus solely on the holy name. But some devotees find it helpful to have a picture of their spiritual master or Krishna in front of them. Does that count as multitasking? No. They are increasing their absorption.
Instead of focusing on whether someone is single-tasking or multitasking, we should focus on how absorbed they are in the practice. People with high intellectual capacity need enough substance to engage their intelligence fully.
If a class is at a mediocre intellectual level, it may not hold their attention. Instead of letting their mind wander, engaging another constructive channel helps keep their intelligence partially focused.
That’s why I started by saying it’s best not to absolutize anything in the material world. Each person is unique and must find what works best to absorb themselves effectively in whatever they do.