I think it is hard to do mantra dhayana or harinama with absorption for many devotees including myself. I think advanced yogis are more qualified in that respect and if they for instance pick up gopala mantra or hare krsna mantra with the sadhaya of bhakti their results will much better than me.
It is clear that there is more emphasis on elaborate deity worship than on mantra dhyana in modern day GV. In one lecture, I heard more qualification is required for smarnam( perhaps a more controlled mind). So aren’t advanced yogis more qualified than most devotees in that respect?

As for Krishna doing yoga, we find this in Dvaraka, but your point is interesting. Still the sadhya and sadhana of yoga and bhakti are distinct, as explained by the Goswamis.

Earlier Gaura-vijaya cited a devotee who wrote this:

When you are empty of samprajnata (”complete [sam-] profound [pra-] knowledge [jnata]“) as in asamprajnata,the idea here is that the self is so utterly absorbed by the very object on which one is meditating that one is no longer aware of such complete and profound
knowledge. It is truly a state of ecstasis (”standing outside” of oneself),and in bhakti, this is the state of the Vrajagopikas in their hearts’ one pointed focus upon Krishna. Patanjali himself gives a definition of samadhi wherein he describes the self “as if” (iva) being completely devoid (sunya) of self (YS 3.3).

There is some truth to this and I recently answered a question about this similarly during a lecture. However, it is hardly the enitre story. The absorbtion of the gopis is not comparable to that which what can be realized by yoga-misra-bhakti. It amounts to much more than citta-vritti nirodah, which may be more akin to ceto darpana marjanam as opposed to citta hari or havng one’s mind (citta/ceto) stolen by Hari. And the visya alambana of yoga misra bhakti is Paramatma, not Bhagavan.

In the Bhagavata, we find the milkmaids of Vraja chanting so ’ham at the height of their love in separation from Gopala Krishna. After Krishna disappeared from the circular love dance, the gopîs, lost in thought of him, declared themselves to be Krishna (asav aham) (SB 10.30.3). However, even as they declared themselves to be Krishna, they were searching for him. They did not actually become Krishna, for if they had there would have been no further possibility to enjoy rasa with him for which they were so eager. Thus their feelings of oneness with him are described in the same Bhagavata verse as being vibhrama, mistaken. Theirs was a case of mistaken identity caused by love. Moreover, vibhrama means beauty. Thus they experienced a nuance of love within a beautiful pastime (vibhramavilasa) of lover and beloved. In Ujjvala-nîlamani 11.28–30, Rupa Gosvami identifies this nuance as the anubhava called lila, which he understands in this instance to mean “imitation of the beloved.”

The subject matter of the Bhagavatam, non-dual reality, is the essence of all Vedanta. It is characterized by the unity of Brahman with atma, and it’s sole purpose is to grant kaivalya, or pure devotion. ”

So here kaivalya is interpreted to mean ‘pure devotion’by jiva Gosvami. So this problem of interpretation is eternal and never will be resolved.

Kaivalya indeed means “aloneness” or “isolation”, but how does that make the system monistic? Kaivalya simply means that a purusha becomes free of prakriti, and YS 2.22 makes it clear that there are many purushas since prakriti remains even after one purusha attains kaivalya.

You’re right; the yoga system is not inherently monistic just because Patanjali chose to use the word kaivalya. It’s all about interpretation of the text; those who do so through the lens of Advaita-Vedanta render it in a monistic way, in keeping with their chosen metaphysic. A practitioner of bhakti would never render the sutras in such a way as to do away with the purusa. That said, I think the explanation you gave here is not very well known yet, and among the more hardcore Advaitins will not sway them anyway.

Gaura Vijaya said:

My basic point is that bhakti is also a form yoga and most devotee practitioners of earlier ages did employ techniques from yoga in their life to aid their bhakti. There is potential to actually break the strong association of Yoga with Advaita Vedanta by showing how Sankara himself attacks it. This will motivate yoga practitioners to move towards the goal of suddha bhakti.

I agree with your basic point that bhakti is also a form of yoga. After all, in bhakti we have the Gitopanisad, which is a yoga-sastra. In a broad sense yoga is any system or process by which the mind is subdued and made fit for meditation. Since bhakti begins with a controlled mind clearly yoga is a big part of bhakti.

Kaivalya indeed means “aloneness” or “isolation”, but how does that make the system monistic? Kaivalya simply means that a purusha becomes free of prakriti, and YS 2.22 makes it clear that there are many purushas since prakriti remains even after one purusha attains kaivalya.