Google
Web         Gaudiya Discussions
Gaudiya Discussions Archive » PHILOSOPHY AND THEOLOGY
Discussions on the doctrines of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. Please place practical questions under the Miscellaneous forum and set this aside for the more theoretical side of it.

Radha Shakti -



Jagat - Sat, 04 May 2002 17:56:45 +0530
Just thought I'd crosspost this, even though it is a bit awkward. There are some good quotes that might be useful:

Here are some notes I was preparing for an answer to Satyaraja way back when he was promoting the Vallabhacharya view against the Gaudiya, either here or on VNN. I never sent them in because the discussion got out of hand, but they are relevant to this question:

Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept that Vedanta Sutra 2.2.42ff is saying that Shakti is not independent in creating the world. On the analogy of the sexual relationship found in Gita 14.3, both male and female elements are needed for creation. The Vedanta does not deny the existence of prakriti or shakti, it only denies its primacy.

In this section the sutras are discussing whether or not sakti is independent in the act of creation. The position of Vedanta is that sakti is not independently responsible for the world. She depends upon Brahman. Vs. 2.2.43 tells us that Brahman has no material senses through which he connects with sakti. However in the next sutra it is stated that there is no contradiction (apratisedhah) if it said that Brahman has senses (a body) made of knowledge and so on (vijnana adi). This indeed is what we say and thus while we refute the Shakta theory itself, we do not reject it altogether. We qualify it and include it in Vedanta. The Upanishads say

parAsya zaktir vividhaiva zrUyate
svAbhAvikI jnAna-bala-kriyA ca (ÇvetU.6.8).


So we understand this to mean that Brahman has Shakti, energy or power by which he accomplishes things.

na tasya kAryaM karaNaM ca vidyate
na tat-samaz cAbhyadhikaz ca dRzyate
parAsya zaktir vividhaiva zrUyate
svAbhAvikI jnAna-bala-kriyA ca


When the one without a second takes on attributes for the sake of lila (to put it one way; time is not a factor), then the implications of this action are manifold. One of these implications is that everywhere opposites are created, because variegatedness implies opposites. If the Supreme Lord manifests as male, the implication is that an equal and opposite female pole exists in company with that supreme male, or Purushottama. The existence of a supreme male without a female is nonsense, like saying an electron can exist without a proton.

These opposites are manifest in primarily three ways (1) unconscious matter (as Krishna is supreme consciousness); this is the jaDa-zakti or external energy; (2)infinitesimal consciousness or jiva (as Krishna is infinite consciousness), this is taTastha energy; (3) and sexually differentiated supreme consciousness or Shakti, as Krishna is supreme malehood. This is also called svarUpa-zakti.

The Gaudiya Vaishnavas primarily refer to the Vishnu Purana, where all three of these are referred to as Shaktis of different sorts.

eka-deza-sthitasyAgner
jyotsnA vistAriNI yathA |
parasya brahmaNaH zaktis
tathedam akhilaM jagat || [1.22.56]

viSNu-zaktiH parA proktA
kSetra-jnAkhyA tathAparA |
avidyA-karma-saMjnAnyA
tRtIyA zaktir iSyate || [ViP 6.7.61]

tayA tirohitatvAc ca
zaktiH kSetra-jna-saMjnitA |
sarva-bhUteSu bhUpAla
tAratamyena vartate ||[ViP 6.7.63]


The idea of bhagavan without Shakti is, as I have said, a complete contradiction in terms. According to Jiva Goswami, the word bhaga itself refers to Shakti.

The ViP thus refers to Lakshmi as anapAyinI (never leaving God), and this same word is also found in the Bhagavatam [BhP 12.11.20] in the same context–

anapAyinI bhagavatI zrIH
sAkSAd Atmano hareH ||

TIkA ca - anapAyinI hareH zaktiH | tatra hetuH sAkSAd AtmanaH sva-svarUpasya cid-rUpatvAt tasyAs tad-abhedAd ity arthaH |


So as you see, the idea of the eternal unity of the Shakti and the Shaktiman is something t

hat is accepted in the Vishnu Purana and the Bhagavata Purana. This is also the meaning of the famous Satapatha Brahmana passage:

sa vai naiva reme | tasmAd ekAkI na ramate | sa dvitIyam aicchat | sa haitAvAn Asa yathA strI-pumAMsau sampariSvaktau | sa imam evAtmAnaM dvidhApatayat | tataH patiz ca patnI cAbhavatAm | tasmAd idaM bRgalam iva sva iti ha smAha yAjnavalkyas tasmAd ayam AkAza striyA pUryata eva tAM samabhavat tato manuSyA ajAyanta |


“He did not enjoy. Therefore one does not enjoy when alone. He desired a second. So He transformed Himself, becoming as a man and woman locked in embrace. He divided the one atma into two parts, becoming husband and wife. From that pair comes all this universe, so says Yajnavalkya. That sky is fulfilled by woman, and by going to her, mankind was born.” (Satapatha-brahmana 14.4.2.4)


The Satapatha Brahmana is full of all kinds of creation myths. This is just one of them. But most of them seem to involve the splitting of the non-dual Brahman into equal male and female parts necessary for the function of creation.

To call Radha, Lakshmi or any of Vishnu's shaktis jivas is a complete misunderstanding of the personal godhead.

The Gaudiyas NEVER say that the Shakti and Shaktiman are to be worshiped separately. Jiva Goswami finishes the Krishna-sandarbha with the words –

tad evaM sandarbha-catuSTayena sambandho vyAkhyAtaH | tasminn api sambandhe zrI-rAdhA-mAdhava-rUpeNaiva prAdurbhAvas tasya sambandhinaH paramaH prakarSaH | tad uktaM zrutyA rAdhayA mAdhavo deva iti | etad artham eva vyatAniSimimAH sarvA api paripATir iti pUrNaH sambandhaH |


Briefly, the object of worship is not Krishna, but the Divine Couple, Radha-Krishna.

vinA kRSNaM rAdhA vyathayati samantAn mama mano
vinA rAdhAM kRSNo 'py ahaha sakhi mAM viklavayati |
janiH sA me mA bhUt kSaNam api na yatra kSaNa-duhau
yugenAkSNor lihyAM yugapad anayor vaktra-zazinau ||


One day, when Srimati Radharani and Krishna were separated as a result of some misdeed of his, Shyama's friend Bakulamali came and revealed her mind to Champakalata, "Dear friend, when Radha is separated from Krishna, then to see her gives me a pain in the heart. And when I see Krishna without Radha, I also truly feel great suffering. What misery! Oh beautiful one, I therefore pray that I shall never take any birth in which I shall not be able to drink with my eyes the beauty of Radha and Krishna's moon-like faces, creating a joyful festival together." (UN 8.128)

The rest, unfortunately, was never completed.
Her's - Sat, 04 May 2002 20:56:29 +0530
QUOTE(Jagat @ May 04 2002,05:26)
One day, when Srimati Radharani and Krishna were separated as a result of some misdeed of his, Shyama's friend Bakulamali came and revealed her mind to Champakalata, "Dear friend, when Radha is separated from Krishna, then to see her gives me a pain in the heart. And when I see Krishna without Radha, I also truly feel great suffering. What misery! Oh beautiful one, I therefore pray that I shall never take any birth in which I shall not be able to drink with my eyes the beauty of Radha and Krishna's moon-like faces, creating a joyful festival together." (UN 8.128)



The rest, unfortunately, was never completed.

'Tis left for we, the manjari!
Mina - Sat, 04 May 2002 23:24:24 +0530
So it would seem that any preachers that teach worship of zaktimAn rather than worship of yugala-kizora are not following the Gaudiya tradition correctly.  The implication of this is also that those that hear such teachings are being mislead into thinking that they can have some direct relationship with Govinda (such as being a cowherd boy in sakhya rasa) without respect to Radhika.
Raga - Tue, 14 May 2002 23:57:08 +0530
QUOTE(Ananga @ May 04 2002,21:54)
So it would seem that any preachers that teach worship of zaktimAn rather than worship of yugala-kizora are not following the Gaudiya tradition correctly.  The implication of this is also that those that hear such teachings are being mislead into thinking that they can have some direct relationship with Govinda (such as being a cowherd boy in sakhya rasa) without respect to Radhika.

Often I've heard how some Gaudiyas attain sakhya-rasa in the wake of the priya-narma sakhas' devotion.

We have the example of Gauridas Pandit who was Subal, and his follower Hrdaya Caitanya who was doing bhajan in sakhya rasa, and who also taught it to others (as for instance to Duhkhi Krishna Das who later became Syamananda).

Also in Bhaktivinoda's novel Jaiva Dharma, we have the example of Vrajanatha who aspired to follow Subala.

But the priya-narma sakhas' worship is one of yugal upasana. Have a look at the verse I posted earlier in the Meditations on Subala's seva from Ujjvala Nilamani:
pratyAvartayati prasAdya lalanAM krIDA kali-prasthitAM
zayyAM kuJja-gRhe karotyaghabhidaH kandarpa-lIlocitAm
svinnam vIjayati priyA hRdi parisrastAGgam uccair amuM
kva zrImAn adhikAritAM naH subalaH sevA vidhau vindati

[Sri Rupa Manjari addressed a girlfriend who was very devoted to Subala, saying:] Sakhi! When a quarrel arises between Sri Krishna and His beloveds in the course of their pastimes, Subala goes to Krishna’s sweethearts and pacifies them with different humble words, thus convincing them to return to Him. He makes a wonderful playbed fit for erotic pastimes for Sri Krishna in the kunja-cottages, and when Krishna becomes tired of lovemaking and falls exhausted on His beloved’s (Radha’s) breasts, Subala picks up a fan and fans Them. For which services is Subala not eligible?”
(Ujjvala-nilamani, 2.14)
Thus it might be more fair to say that they are in the Gaudiya tradition, but not Rupanuga.

By the way, are there present-day parivaras doing bhajan in the wake of the priya-narma sakhas' bhava?
Mina - Wed, 15 May 2002 00:58:32 +0530
That's a good question.    We have no reason to think that the parikaras such as cowherd boys that are situated into sakhya rasa, or parents like Nanada and Yashoda situated in vAtsalya rasa, will not also experience some type of mAdhurya rasa at times, do we?

I guess the main question is whether or not it is appropriate to aspire to any eternal identity that is not that of such a specialized type of sakhI, if one is following our own specialized rAgAnugA tradition.