Logically, can Radha love Krishna? - Split from "Being a Manjari"

As many of you know I am a strict mono theist. So to me this kind of statement is tantamount to saying that all those souls in Vraja or elsewhere who are not "dasis" do not recognize Radha's glories.

The real question is do you recognize Radha's glories ? For if you really did you might see things a bit different then this narrow approach to God. What does "Radha's glories" mean ?

To me it means She is God, period.

Does this mean that unless I see myself as a dasi in relation to Her that I do not see Her "Glories" ?

I don't follow.

One could say the opposite. That if you see the highest role for anyone as a dasi in relation to Radha, then you do not know Radha's glories. Why would God as a female desire other females ? What makes more sense to you ? Would Radha have more use and fun with a das or a dasi. When you comprehend that, you will know the true "glories" of Sri Radha.

The sexist approach to God thinking that God is a male and devotion to God means being a female is highly illogical. God is not a male or a female. God takes male and female forms. The female form is the form God takes to enjoy. Devotion means serving God's desire for pleasure, not our own.

Since no acharya I know of has ever spoken of enjoying Radharani in the way that you speak of it, I admit to feeling suspicious. But I will not try to interfere with your pleasure in thinking as you do.

Sri Radha is very much in love with Sri Krishna. Krishna is Her sweetheart. Day and night They are thinking of each other and desiring to meet.

If you are in love with someone, considering him to be your whole life, and you really miss your beloved and wish to see him, then you don't want other men to be around trying to please you. Instead you'll be very happy to discuss the qualities and pastimes of your beloved with your trusted friends. And your friends will be very happy to help you to meet your beloved again.

Sri Radha's heart belongs completely to Sri Krishna, and the manjaris, being Her very close servants and friends, know Her heart. They make many kinds of arrangements for Radha to meet Krishna. They bathe Her, dress and ornament Her, so that She will look attractive to Krishna. They will bring messages from Radha to Krishna and from Krishna to Radha. They will decorate Radha's and Krishna's meetingplace, and they will sing about Krishna to Radha in the time of separation.

Radha loves Her manjaris very much, and She is very grateful for them for their help and friendship. In other words, She has more use and fun with them than She would with some "males". Radha desires only Krishna, She doesn't mix with other males. She doesn't even want Her own husband Abhimanyu to come close to Her!

This conception is illogical. While Jagat may call what I say "mental gymnastics", I would disagree and say what I present is pure logic, and that the above conception is in fact mental gymnastics. If we look at it from a non attached position we have one conception that logically is correct and the other position that lacks in rudimentry logic.

Radha and Krishna are one person in two forms, logically speaking they cannot love or feel for each other any more then you would feel for your reflection in a mirror. But if we convolute logic using mental gymnastics we can make illogical statements and then take that on faith alone as being true, even though it makes no real logical sense.

In essence you are accepting illogical conclusions based on faith. The words you read outweigh the logical fallacy of the conception they present because they are written by people who you have faith in as being beyond error. We are assured of their correctness even though logically they are lacking. So we should consider whether God exists within an illogical or logical paradigm. Then we should adjust our conception to fit the obvious.

Here is explained that Hladini is the aspect of God that displays God's ecstasy, beauty, sweetness, charm, harmony. In the Brahma Samhita we get a bit more information

Radha is the personification of the Hladini Shakti. In other words She is the manifestation of God's ecstacy, beauty, sweetness, charm, and harmony mentioned in the previous verse.

Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains in his Govinda Bhasya

He explains here that the Lords qualities are manifested through the para-sakti, and what is the manifestation ? That is Radha, the hladini sakti. The lords qualities are manifested in Radha. Through the svarupa-sakti's sandhini aspect the lord manifests as the best of males, but it is Radha who is actually manifesting the lords various transcendental qualities.

So even though it is explained that Krsna is actually Radha Himself, and when He touches Her it is like He is looking in a mirror, still this is bringing transcendental bliss. How is this possible ? Wouldn't God desire or need to have a relationship with another actual person for the relationship to be real as opposed to play acting?

Again Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana explains this point in Govinda Bhasya

"when They are together there is naturally the perfection of blissful amorous pastimes."

Here we have the answer. Blissful amorous pastimes are perfected by their rasa. In other words their rasa is for the sake of perfecting lila, perfecting the pastimes of Vraja. They are one person having a relationship in two forms in order to create perfect pastimes.

So the truth is it takes two to tango. The pastimes of the lord are manifested for the ecstacy they bring. Although Radha and Krsna are the central figures of the lila, their rasa is compared to one person looking into a mirror.

Radha and Krsna are one and the same and if we leave that out of the equation everything after that is wrong.


From Bhaktivinoda's Jaiva Dharma

So are we really understanding the reality of the rasa between Radha Krishna ?
Can one person really have feelings for him/herself ? If this makes sense to you...I would put forth that you will have to use mental gymnastics to accomodate this concept.

Maybe our vision is too much centered on the external aspect of the lila without first understanding the internal reality ?

Yet, this is the position proclaimed throughout the shastras. I understand your determination to broadcast the idea of monotheism, but I fear you have forgotten the concepts omnipotent and omnipresent.

Ekam evAdvitIyam, neha nAnAsti kiJcanA. That being the case, according to your logic no love could ever exist anywhere, since all is nondifferent from God and manifest from him alone. I'd say there is something lacking in your logic there.

The point is, however, that there are manifestations of God, such as Sri Radha, who possess a unique identity. The entire realm of Vaikuntha is a manifestation of antaraGga-zakti, the same potency which is manifest in its fullest in Sri Radha.

You've been posting those same quotes over and over again. I believe we even have a topic, Shiva's philosophy, dedicated to exploring your unique views whenever they are in contrast with the conceptions of the rest of the tradition. In fact, I will probably be splitting off some of these posts and merging them into that thread so as to keep this one on topic.

If Radha and Krishna don't feel anything for each other, then why did Krishna come as Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu to feel, taste and understand Sri Radha's love for Him?

Krishna Himself was wondering how Radha can love Him so much, and how much happiness She feels because of this love. Having these desires, Krishna took Radha's mood and complexion and came here to fulfill these desires.

My goal is not to become a logician anyway. My goal is to become a loving maidservant of Radha, and I look at things from this perspective.

Logic is not the ultimate principle according to which God does whatever He does. The ways of prema and rasa are beyond logic.

There is a distinction between the one and difference between a jiva and God and the difference between God's various expansions and plenary portions. The latter are one identity manifesting various personas. The former are two distinct identities who are not one identity in various personas. Love can exist only when there is a lover and beloved. When the sastra describes the love between Radha and Krishna this is meant to convey the apparent love manifested in lila, in other words that is what appears to be true to the participants of the lila.

We are in a position to examine that lila from the vantage point of a non participant.

Those within that lila who are jivas are under the spell of yoga maya. They are unaware that they are interacting with the supreme lord. Our vantage point is different. We can see the lila for what it really is. We know Krishna is the supreme lord, as is Sri Radha. We can see the descriptions of their rasa from the vantage point of an outside observer, which is very different from the vantage point of the participant jivas in that lila. To the jivas in that lila Radha and Krishna are perceived as the various books on rasa describe them as, ie. very much in love. To those who are not under the spell of yoga maya (ourselves) we can observe that lila from another perspective. We know that Radha is in charge of that lila. We know that Radha and Krishna are both manifestations of the supreme lords personality. We know that they are one person in two forms. We can understand the lila from God's perspective.

There are two aspects to rasa lila. The internal and the external. The jivas in that lila are only aware of the external.

We can glimpse deeper. We are not encumbered by ignorance. Those jivas in that lila do not know that Radha and Krishna and the nitya sakhis are all the various personas of the supreme lord. They see the lila externally. To them Radha and Krishna are people in love. They are totally unaware of the existential position they are in and the true inner nature of the pastime they are participating in. They are in ignorance, and in this case ignorance is in fact bliss. Knowledge of Radha and Krishna's true position would lessen the rasa that Radha Krishna desire's in that situation. Instead of a normal lifestyle sharing love among equals, it would turn into awe and reverence of the supreme lord.

So this is the truth. The gaudiya commentaries on rasa lila are giving the nature of that lila in vraja. But there is an inner dimension to that lila as well that one needs to fully understand in order to fully appreciate the nature of God in the here and now.

They are one person, it's not that they don't feel anything out of some kind of strangeness, the feelings they exhibit in lila are for the necessity of that lila.

Mahaprabhu came to teach. Don't think that he didn't really know what Radha feels. That is a metaphor. Just looking at this from a larger perspective we can gain an idea of this. How many times has Mahaprabhu had the same exact pastimes on numerous planets ? 10 times ? 100 ? 100,000,000,000 times ? Who can say ? How long have these pastimes been going on ? How long is forever ?

Besides that Radha and Krishna are one person in two forms, of course Krishna knows what Radha experiences, He is Radha.

The metaphor is that God experiences more pleasure as a female. This is the point of Mahaprabhu's lila. He is Krishna come to taste that which Krishna cannot taste unless he takes on the mood of Radha. In other words we are being taught that God enjoys more as a female then as a male. Mahaprabhu is teaching that on the outside God is Male e.g all powefull, Vishnu, Narayana, Purusa. But on the inside God enjoys as a female. That is Mahaprabhus metaphoric message. God's inner self is feminine while the outer display is masculine. This is Mahaprabhu, this is the inner message of his lila.

Yes, this distinction is there between viSNu-tattva and zakti-tattva. These two principles are the essence of all there is. ViSNu-tattva consists of forms such as Krishna, Balarama, Rama, Narasimha, Vamana, Narayana and so forth. Zakti-tattva consists of both personified and all-pervasive zaktis. The former would be for example Sri Radha, the original zakti, her expansions the Vraja-gopIs, the localized sandhinI-manifestations of Balarama in the form of Krishna's friends, parents, house, abode and so forth, while the latter are the pervasive hlAdinI, sandhinI and saMvit within the realm of antaraGga-zakti, ie. the tripada-vibhUti, which is an aspect of the threefold division of antaraGga-zakti, taTastha-zakti (jIva-zakti) and mAyA-zakti.

Hence Sri Radha is the original zakti, and not a viSNu-tattva-prakAza. In that sense, she is not "god" as you would have it, as in "sharing the same consciousness".

So all of the quotes I provided saying they are the same consciousness mean nothing to you ? When Baladeva says that Lakshmi is all pervading and all of the other citations saying the same thing, this means to you she is not visnu tattva?

Can you provide any citation backing up your claim which seems in direct contradiction to all the citations I have provided.

That is an oversimplification. There is Cit Sakti, Tatastha or Jiva Sakti and Maya Sakti. Cit Sakti and Maya Sakti are really the same thing.

The Jiva is different. The jiva is a unique identity. All of the rest of the Sakti is non different then Saktiman. They are one and the same thing. God is both energy and in control of the energy.

All Visnu tattva personas are in control of all of the energy and they are the energy itself, the jiva is the energy but is not in control of the energy. The energy of God is a single all pervading unified field of energy with a single consciousness that is one with and in total control of that/itself. The energy of God is conscious and able to fully control the energy it/he/she is comprised of. Otherwise it is known as Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. Brahman is the energy, Paramatma is the consciousness of that energy, and Bhagavan is the id or pysche of that energy/consciousness.

Within that all pervading conscious field of energy are numerous jivas who are part of that field of energy/consciousness, but are localized and without any ability to control that field of energy as Visnu can. The Visnu tattva personas are all various forms that the single all pervading consciousness/energy takes to interact with jivas.

This is not a philosophical notion, it is concrete reality.

Radha and all of Her expansions and plenary portions are all Visnu tattva, Lakshmi, Durga etc. They are the all pervading supreme being.

In Vraja there is an external display and an internal reality.

Thats never been my point of view. Lila is performed for the sake of enjoyment. The real rasa is between God and the jivas in any lila. Yoga maya covers over the jivas so they are unaware of the true position of Radha Krishna or other Visnu tattva personas. The lila is for the interactions of love between real different people, God and the jivas. Although in Goloka Radha and Krishna are the central figures in the lila as leaders of the gopa and gopis, the real rasa is not between them since they are one and the same. So any lila is not mindless, it is just that the real purpose is for God to enjoy relationships with other people.

Axiom: Identification with the body, male or female, which is most fully expressed in the sexual act, is the core of bondage to matter.

So let us take this discussion to the world of material sexuality, since this is really where Dirty Hari's problem really begins. In this matter, Dirty Hari and I have been in agreement before, for I have stated that my attitude to sexuality is not as obsessively fearful as we have seen in more orthodox presentations of Krishna consciousness. Indeed, I have stated that in terms of understanding and experiencing rasa, sexuality may have a positive effect in entering the awareness or consciousness of transcendental rasa.

However, this is certainly not achieved if one takes the position of bhoktA, which is the essential quality identified with the masculine position. I think that where DH is coming from, if I can extrapolate from his idea of "male pleasing the female," is that he is thinking of the material sexual act, where the male has to adopt an even greater service attitude than the woman in order for both to enjoy.

So how can one reconcile the manjari position with the material sexual act, without being accused of trying to usurp Krishna's position ? In fact, I think that Dirty Hari, if I am correct in understanding his subtext, is quite correct. Men or women in the material world are all identifying as the "enjoyer," but it is true that material sexology (despite sociological and cultural differences) means that the male must act as the servant of the woman, promising to please and satisfy her, materially and sexually, in order to be able to continue to enjoy the privileges of enjoying with her. Where the man fails in these respects, he must suffer the more hellish aspects of samsara. And indeed, in certain situations, the continual challenge of satisfying a woman can be hellish in itself.

The reason I mention the cultural and social differences is that in the Indian situation, as well as many other traditional patriarchies, where males enjoy the advantages of social dominance, they do not have to engage in the kind of competition for desirable women that is current in modern Western society, for marriage arrangements are handled by the family (and the only other real possibilities are commercial transactions). Whatever advantages this system may have socially, it is ultimately bad for both men and women for an array of psychological reasons. (My argument here is basically taking an American free enterprise type of position against a more socialistic approach to love. When you have to compete in order to win something, you appreciate it more.)

So, to get back to the point, how can one act as a man in this world, both materially and sexually, and at the same be a manjari? At the very least, does not manjari bhava imply total freedom from material sexuality ? And if one takes a more affirmative or positive position towards sexuality, does that not mean that one is identifying with Krishna in either ahangrahopasana or monistic identification, which is incompatible with manjari-bhava?

These are important concerns and this is what I think:

The individual soul is not the body, but participates in the experiences the pleasures and pains of the body. The manjari consciousness is one of service to the union of the Divine Couple. The manjari participates mystically in that union as an observer. The essential element that links the two is detachment, which means the service spirit. In other words, even if engaged in sexual acts, one has to indeed cultivate a service attitude, but through a mystical, detached participation in Their union, not one's own.

Some may consider that this is "a priori" impossible.

I realize that this is somewhat radical for most, and we have already seen that some people have protested against what they see as a move to Sahajiyaism on my part. And I confess that I am going against that strong scriptural stream that seems to find no positive potential in sexuality. So I am going out on a limb here in the knowledge that many people here, what to speak of those who are already consider me an enemy to Gaudiya Vaishnavism, will disapprove of this attitude.

However, I am obliged to take this position because even if one engages in sexual acts purely for reproduction, one must recognize that it is a sacred act of communion between two individuals that has ramifications beyond reproduction. But let's be realistic. 99% of people are householders and they are going to engage in sexual acts. If they engage in these acts with a sense of self-abhorrence, that leads to inevitable tension between partners. So even if they should limit their engagement to reproductive acts, they should do so in a sense of mystic participation in the eternal relation of love that exists in the Divine Couple.

[Of course, to see sex as only a reproductive act is an act of deliberate self-deception.]

In India, the various Tantric schools--Buddhist, Shaiva-Shakta, or Vaishnava--have mystically or symbolically adapted the sexual act to their own metaphysics. In Vaishnavism, therefore, both male and female partners are manjari servants of the external act of lovemaking.

It's really very simple. The jivas are eternally jivas, even in the "spiritual" world jivas remain localized and infinitesimal, they remain the controlled and Visnu remains Visnu.

Radha and her expansions and plenary portions are all Her, are all God, are all Visnu tattva, eternally, whether in the "material" world or the "spiritual" world.

The jivas come under the shelter of the hladini sakti, they do not change their position from tiny individual dependent souls and become Visnu tattva at any time.

Krishna is male and his hladini Sakti is female. They are not different other then the form and persona. God is not male nor female. Both male and female forms were created together, as you rightly pointed out they are interdependent, one without the other makes no sense, part A fits and is created for Part B.

Krishna is the supreme male moiety, Radha is the supreme female moiety. All of your various arguments are essentially not against my position, they are against the position of all the acaryas I have cited.

When we can read over and over that Radha and Krishna are one and the same, identical, one spirit two bodies, etc., you cannot seem to bring these conceptions into compatability with your conceptions because then your rasa theology doesn't work on the internal level. So essentially you throw out the baby with the bathwater. There is no need to reject the mono theistic concept being taught. Maybe you need to expand your vision so that the ontological position of Visnu tattva is not ignored in favor of forcing an unwieldy conception of God onto rasa theory.

From the Narada Pancaratra

So in your view Radha and Her expansions e.g Parvati, Draupadi, Nitya Sakhis etc are not having sexual relations with anyone But Krishna ? Shiva, the Pandavas, the gopas etc, they are all celibate ? And instead you propose that God has sexual relations ONLY with Herself in another form ?

Dear Shivaji, I don't need to read many words out of a presentation to make sense or nonsense of it. My point is basically this:-

Why would God need such a roundabout manner of relating to the jivas? In your setup, I find no reason why God should become two (or more) - Radha and Krishna (and a multitude of others) with absolutely no difference between Them and enact an elaborate drama just to interact with the jivas. That just makes no sense to me.

OTOH, Radha and Krishna (and all the others who you consider as 100% Vishnu) being *different* persons and then engaging in lilaa is much more sensible because there is a *purpose* behind such acts. To love *another* person.

Indeed. If true loving exchanges were only possible between God and the jIvas, while they were not possible between God and his antaraGga-zakti, it would only make sense that he would have jIvas as his most confidential consorts, as his mother, father and friends, and his pet calves.

Would you then, preferably by referring to scripture, explain why all the sakhIs and maJjarIs are described as expansions of Radha?

In your opinion, is zakti-tattva independent just like viSNu-tattva? If this were the fact, then truly it would not be monotheistic, since there would be two independent tattvas out there. If this were reconciled by declaring zakti-tattva and viSNu-tattva identical in all respects, we would have to ask why the concepts of zakti and zaktimAn have been introduced to begin with. If there were truly no difference at all, no bheda but all abheda, we would not need the separate terms. Statements such as zakti-zaktimatoz cApi na vibhedaH kathaJcana would then be as good as saying, "fire and fire are nondifferent"; the whole division would be redundant.

Truly God, if he were undifferentiated, would have a hard time loving. However, since the one becomes many, as you point out, by manifesting various form and persona, love becomes possible.

It seems that in pursuing this "inner" principle, you equate the differentiated male principle whom we adore as Krishna and identify as the original, primeval form of God, with the undifferentiated Godhead. Whenever the one becomes two or many, the aspect of lIlA is in action, and through the functions of lIlA-zakti the one bewilders himself and enjoys as the many.

You may want to study the second chapter of Raga-vartma-candrika for an excellent depiction of God's simultaneous abhijJAta and mugdhata, his simultaneous existence as the all-knowing absolute and the bewildered cowherd boy who is able to enjoy various loving pastimes to his heart's fullest extent amidst what ontologically are but his own manifestations.

= = =

Radha is Radha, Draupadi is Draupadi, Durga is Durga. They are distinct aspects of zakti. Durga will and Draupadi may engage in sexual relations with others, but Radha will never do that. The very proposal is an outrage for Gaudiya Vaishnavas who are dedicated to the bhajana-mArga of Sripad Rupa Gosvamipada and his followers. If you wish to insist that Radha enjoys sexual relations with anyone but her most beloved Krishna, I challenge you to present even a single example from the scriptures. Otherwise, referring to our board rule #1, I must insist that you cease from presenting such a view as appropriate under the auspices of Gaudiya Discussions.

peace out.

1. Philosophical and theological matters shall be ultimately resolved by referring to the foundational writings of the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition. The Visitor shall not insist in public that the view he presents is appropriate unless he presents reasonable evidence to back it up.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

You are the one violating the rule, not me.

I believe I made it abundantly clear that I mean specifically Radha when I say that "Radha is Radha, Draupadi is Draupadi, Durga is Durga. They are distinct aspects of zakti." They are one, granted, but they are different in that they are different persona in different forms engaged in distinct activities. Hence, "Durga will and Draupadi may engage in sexual relations with others, but Radha will never do that." Was there something unclear in that?

I am really growing tired of these games. With the amount of complaints we both are getting, I really would like to urge you to reconsider the way in which you participate in the forums, if indeed you are interested in participating in harmony with our statement of purpose. Eccentric interpretations that fly in the face of centuries of traditional interpretation of the scriptures are not what our main audience here seeks, nor are our senior contributors fond of participating in odd and ever-extended debates such as the one at hand. Two thirds of the points made go unaddressed, and you paste in more of the same and just restate the same points that have already been addressed over and over again ad infinitum, as if rephrasing them would make any difference.

If memory serves, your very first post in the old raganuga-forums touched the same issue, as you came in relating your experiences of a debate in another forum about more or less the same issues we are rehashing here, a debate that took some 70 pages when pasted into MS Word. If long-time students of shastra, and mind you, students who have studied with a guru which is the common method if you want to get things straight, haven't come to agree with these views of yours over the past couple of years, chances are it won't be happening anytime soon.

I don't really care who made this statement but still I think it would be of interest
to know who said it. For the record of this thread, please oblige Dirty Hari.

The conception that merging with Radha is an option
appears problematic to me, particularly in the sense given within the quote
which would seem to infer merging with loss of identity
vis-a-vis retaining identity as a perennial dasi.

Though some Gaudiya Vaishnavas, ritely or wrongly,
posit "merging in Brahman" as a distinct transcendental alternative
to an ongoing personal spiritual identity,
where is the scriptural record that the merging conception
also applies to Radha ?

Logic is only as good as the premises.
Under the premises that:
* Love is all pervasive
* A person can feel self love

it is logical that one person may love another
even though they are both one person.

Q.E.D.

That would be from the manjari thread, written by Jagat.

My problem with that statement is that nowhere is it supported in any sastra, either dasi or merge into Radha ? nothing else ? and I am the one he accused of manufacturing siddhanta.

Funny how my "blasphemy" is able to be supported by numerous sastric quotes and by the major acaryas. What next Jagat ? I should get my report card signed by who exactly ? ? Blasphemy ? Funny how you were unable to disprove a single point I made. Funny how whenever you guys were shown to be actually contradicting sastra you all of a sudden didn't really mean what you clearly wrote. Look guys, our debates always end up with the two of you getting on your soap boxes and preaching down to the blaspheming idiot that I am.

You may want to adjust that vision that puts your conception automatically superior to anything that differs from it. Or was that you guys who I just heard talking with Radha ? No ? Well what do you know...you think you know...but you have no idea.

I would like to highlight this statement for all participants in this thread. "Actual experience of rasa-lila."

I believe I have said this a couple of times already:

In addition, you have not demonstrated how our position, representing the broad tradition, contradicts zAstra; you have merely demonstrated that it contradicts your eccentric interpretation of the same, conflicting with what you see as the logical outcome of the said passages that demonstrate the abhedatva of zakti-tattva. Well, I have responded several times:

Let me quote myself once again on my conclusion on your position:

Enough said. We can go on and I can just keep quoting what I've already said if you wish.

I am having a hard time understanding the above premises!

In any case the second one seems like a starting point for narcissism. I was, however, told once that Krishna was attracted to His own reflection so much that He wanted to embrace it, so I guess, I shouldn't work on assumptions.

Of course, for me, a God who loves another *distinct* individual is more appealing, more human. This kind of "I love myself" Gods sound more like the kundalini awakening tantric Shiva-shakti pair.

Interesting. Jagat could you please give more details about the Gaudiya conception of sAyujya.

With regards to Krsna, Radha and others.

I haven't been posting much the last couple of days even though a couple of interesting threads have been inspired by Shiva’s novel-sounding theories related to Shakti tattva. I thought to myself: Surely Shiva’s position has no support from the acharyas. So I decided to take a closer look at the one specific verse that seems to give potential for the kinds of interpretations I am hearing from Shiva. It doesn't seem to have all that much point, but for everyone's pleasure, I am giving the result of my findings in a somewhat disorganized form.

|| Bhagavata 10.33.17 ||

evaM pariSvAGga-karAbhimarza-
snigdhekSaNoddAma-vilAsa-hAsaiH
reme ramezo vraja-sundarIbhir
yathArbhakaH sva-pratibimba-vibhramaiH

In this way Lord Krishna, the master of the goddess of fortune, took pleasure in the company of the young women of Vraja by embracing them, caressing them and glancing lovingly at them with broad, playful smiles. It was just as if a child were playing with his own reflection.

(1) Sridhara Swami: tad-vilAsAnabhibhUtasyaiva ratau dRSTAntaH—yathArbhaka iti | sva-pratibimbair vibhramaH krIDA yasya sa iva | anenaitad darzitam—svIyam eva sarva-kalA-kauzalaM saugandhya-lAvaNya-mAdhuryAdi ca tAsu saJcArya tAbhiH saha reme yathArbhakaH sva-pratibimbair iti ||

Sridhar Swami makes the following point: “In order to show that Krishna was not completely overwhelmed by these pastimes, Shukadeva gives this example of a boy playing with his own reflection. The purpose is to show that Krishna invested the gopis with all his own talents for music and dancing, as well as his qualities such as fragrance, beauty and sweetness, and then enjoyed with them like a boy with his own reflections.”

Comment: We should not expect Sridhar to have the same fully developed theology of Radha and the gopis as in the laterGaudiya acharyas. And because of his ostensible connection to Advaita philosophy, we might well think that he would have taken the prima facie meaning of the verse to say that the gopis were mere reflections of Krishna and thus had no separate existence. Instead, he says this means that Krishna endowed them (who possessed a separate existence) with his own qualities. So, though I cannot say whether Sridhar considers the gopis to be jivas (he likely did, though I haven’t read through everything he wrote about them), he is certainly not using this as an opportunity to emphasize identity rather than difference.

(2) Sanatan :

(a) ubhayatrApi pratibimba-sthAnIyAnAM zrI-gopInAm arbhaka-sthAnIyasya zrI-bhagavataz ca muhuH parasparam anukaraNAt | tatra ca zrI-bhagavata evArbhakasyeva vilAsAya svayaM pravRttis tat-pravartanaM tadIya-vilAsa-vizeSaz ca labhyate |

The gopis were imitating Krishna’s actions, but he was also imitating theirs. Like a little boy, he was simultaneously playing and engaging them in games. This was his special pastime.

(b) Commenting on Sridhar’s interpretation, he says:

yathArbhakaH pratibimba-dvArata eva svIya-mukha-mAdhuryam anubhavati, na tu svataH, tathA zrI-bhagavAn api tAdRza-nija-preyasI-dvArata eveti hi gamyate tAsAM prema-mayam udayaM vinA tad-anudayAt |

Just like a child can perceive the beauty of his own face by looking at his reflection in a mirror, similarly Krishna perceives his own beauty through his own beloved devotees. Without the manifestation of their love, these qualities in him do not manifest.

( c) Sanatan also reminds us of the context:

yad vA, ramAyA IzaH prabhur api vraja-sundarIbhir eva reme | nanu, tayeti tato’pi tAsAM prema-guNa-saundaryam adhikam abhipretam | yad vA, ramAyA IzaH prabhur eva, na tu ramaNaH | vraja-sundarIbhis tu reme tathApi tathaivAbhipretam |

“Though Krishna is the master of the goddess of fortune, he is [here] not acting as her lover. So by making this distinction, he is indicating the primacy of his relationship with the gopis. He enjoyed with them as he never did with Lakshmi. [Details thereof given in the verse.]”

Comment: If Sanatan Prabhu held that this was nothing more than Krishna enjoying with himself, then surely he would have emphasized the identity of the gopis with Lakshmi here, and thus drawn on the potential of this verse to support the idea that the the gopis were just an aspect of Krishna, as Lakshmi is of Narayan; and that just as his enjoyments with his shaktis are mere self-reflection, rather than interchanges between differentiated, independent entities. However, he does not.

(d) Commenting on another aspect of Sridhar's interpretation:

evaM tasya tAsAm api sarvoparicara-guNatvena parasparaM sAmyam AsaktiM ca dRSTAntena vyaJjayati yatheti |

“This example is meant to show us in the superexcellence of the gopis' qualities, and [especially to underline] that their mutual attachment was equal.”

(e) Further interpretation of the "mirror image."

kazcid arbhakas tad-vayaH-svabhAvenAtyanta-krIDAsaktaH
sva-pratibimbe vibhramo vilAso yasya
tAdRzaz ca yathA sva-tulyAbhis tAbhiH sva-pratimUrtibhI ramate,
tathAsau prema-vazatA-svabhAvena tan-maya-krIDAsaktaH san
svarUpa-zaktitvena sva-pratimUrtitvAt pratibimba-sthAnIyAbhis tAbhI reme |

The points of comparison in this simile are given as follows:

A boy is extremely attached to playing because that is the nature of his age. Krishna is extremely attached to playing because it is his nature to be governed by love. Such a boy plays with his own counterparts (pratimUrti) in the mirror which are equal to him, so does Krishna play with the gopis, who are compared to reflections because they are his own counterparts due to being his svarUpa-zaktis.

(g) And of course, he quotes Brahma-samhita.

Ananda-cinmaya-rasa-pratibhAvitAbhis
tAbhir ya eva nija-rUpatayA kalAbhiH
goloka eva nivasaty akhilAtma-bhUto
govindam Adi-puruSaM tam ahaM bhajAmi

I should perhaps discuss Jiva's commentary on this verse here, but that shall have to wait.

(h)

atra ca yathArbhako yAdRzaM mukha-cAlanAdikaM kurute tAdRzaM tat-pratibimba-mUrtayo’pi yAdRzaM tAs tAdRzam eva krIDA-kautukitvAt so'py evaM zrI-kRSNaz ca zrI-gopyaz ca parasparam AsaktatvAd anucakrur iti jJeyam | anena tAsAm iva tasyApy atra snigdha-zabda-vyaJjita-sneha-vikAro darzitaH |

Just as a child moves his face, etc., and his mirror images do the same, so too Krishna and the gopis imitated each others' movements in the playfulness of the dance. This is also revealed in the word snigdha which appears elsewhere in the verse.

I'll have to finish this later. The comments of Jiva, Narayan Bhatta and Vishwanath have a few novel twists.

Just to provide another perspective, Dvaita is also known as bimba-pratibimba vaada, the doctrine of object and image, where the jivas are supposed to be like reflected images of Brahman. The image is different from the object. Of course, about this particular slant, I know only upto this point. But I have a reference handy, if somebody needs more information.

When I find time to read! I have a job to take care of

"AtmArAmAz ca munayo..." etc. (Bh. 1.7.10)

I wonder, who are these atmaramas, after all?

svaruupaananda does not necessarily translate into love.

In any case, what you are talking about here is the devotees, there is nothing to blink about, they take pleasure in the AtmA - Hari

aatmaa vaa are drshtavya shrotavyo mantavyo nidhidyaasitavya

And I know I am going to get thrashed for this, but let me say it anyway!

I was not expecting to engage in any scripture quotation wars. I was stating something which my supposedly dense mind finds difficult to comprehend and which basically gives me the creeps - i.e. abheda. For me all this big talk about love and sacrifice is useless if at the end of the day, all we get to love is oneself or some weird all-pervading cosmic consciousness. Prabhupaada was once asked, "When I chant Hare Krishna, I see a light glowing in the middle of my forehead." And I like his response, "Keep chanting, it will go away."

My God is a human God. His divinity does not become a burden on His human nature, rather fulfils it. A simple guy with a simple agenda - to love His devotees. A human God, for me, cannot be divorced from human mannerisms, ontology notwithstanding. And as far as scripture is concerned, Dirty Hari has more quotes in his bag than all of you put together and is challenging you guys on your own turf (Now he is going to teach Gaudiya Vaishnavism to you). Perhaps a simple straightforward admission that "We are Radha's devotees and all we want to do is see Her happy, and we know what makes Her happy. To hell with Vedaanta, we want Radha!" would have been the end of it, but all this has to go into some weird sexual tantric interpretation. I pointed all this to another guy. The reply I got was "Thanks for the good laugh!"

BTW, I was not aware of the sexual content in Dirty Hari's philosophy, but if it is really the way it is made out to be, then I admire the guy's courage to make it public.

Dear Kishalaya ji!

It also was not my intent to start any war - "scripture quotation" or any other kind of war. I only wanted to clarify your words. Please, forgive me, if I somehow distressed or disturbed you.

Dirty Hari,
There is One who is infinite
both quantitatively and qualitatively.
Dare I say, this is the God of the Vedaantists.

Every portion of the One is a PLENARY portion.
Every division is a whole which does not diminish
the original whole.

This One loves and therefore the Two, Three on to Infinity love.

This is all within the ambit of the invocatory
peace mantra of the Eesha Upanishad.
But, perhaps you are not a monotheist of the Vedaantic persuasion?
It is a theism of the Absolute and the Infinite.

Kindly reflect on this mantra ......
Is it relevant to your issues?

Yes, I have great sympathy for Madhva, because it is he who boldly declares that it is the non recognition of difference that is the cause of all bondage. Vedaanta is about difference. It is the misplaced sense of "unity" that is the "problem".

I have looked into various bheda-abheda philosophies and believe me, not of them are competent at saving their deities from death unless they acknowledge the intuitive concept of difference together with relegating the oneness to a mere formality. This is what has been happening between you and DH, the Gaudiya sampradays's overstressing of oneness (just look at the sheer number of quotes DH throws) has resulted in the murder of their own deity. I am simply appalled.

Whatever may be my worth(lessness), I for one care more for the safety of my God than some intellectual pleasure of thinking that "Vedanta is the fundamental unity of all creation".

bheda! bheda! bheda!

The Divine realization of acintya-bheda-abheda is expressed
by a Vraja Rasik Saint in this verse:

prAsAde sA pathi pathi ca sA pRSTatas sA puraH sA
paryaMke sA dizi dizi ca sA tad viyogAturasya haM ho!
cetaH prakRtir aparA nAsti me kApi sA sA
sA sA sA sA jagati sakale ko 'yam advaita-bhAvaH?

Meaning here

Sri Prabodhananda Sarasvati had also concurred
in 'sangIta mAdhavam':

Saptama sarga. 7

puro rAdhA pazcimAdapi ca rAdhA tata itaH
sphuratyeSA samyak vasati mama rAdhAntaragatA
adhazcordhvaM rAdhA viTapiSu ca rAdhA kimaparaM
samastaM me rAdhA mayam idam aho! bhAti bhavanam

Meaning here

Jaya Sri Radhey!

Anyway, I should not try to foist my thinking pattern on others. However, one thing I know for sure, philosophies need to be bheda-pradhaana (difference being the primary precept). I remember somewhere Bhaktivinode Thaakura has said this, otherwise there will be destruction of bhakti, love and all that is so very dear to the heart. Dirty Hari should be taken as a warning!

There is a clear hierarchy of shastras and their interpretation. Why don't you quote from Linga or Shiva puraana?

That is the Divine realization of Siddha Mahapurusha who wrote the Sastras and Rasik Poetry.
To arrive at and experience this state of Divine ecstasy is the precious desired goal of every sadhaka who follows the teachings of Sri Gauranga Mahaprabhu's acintya-bheda-abheda-tattva sincerely.

Could be!

However for me, what people talk as abheda is the deep feeling of affection where two people feel "one". Anything more than that and it makes me uneasy (makes me remember Mahaaprabhu's warning about abheda)!

Actually some followers of Goraa don't give a damn about ontology. They just want to love Him and His dear ones. That's it! Simple philosophy! Love God! just as one person will love *another*.

Should we leave out the color blue when we describe the sky because we don't like blue ?

Everything exists within and is comprised of God, this is an inescapable fact of life. So the truth is that everything is one with God, period, whether we find this concept appealing or not, it is a fact of life.

As far as being conscious of this, the time, place and circumstance determines the necessity of knowing these cosmic truths. For instance: in lila the jivas are not conscious of bhedabheda, their lives are not about seeking answers to the great philosophical truths and searching for God consciousness.

We exist in a different situation. Without understanding bhedabheda properly we cannot become self realized.

God is part of our consciousness, our sense of our self conscious awareness is different when we are self realized from when we are not.

When you understand bhedabheda properly you will be able to appreciate the fact that God is with you at all times. When we are not self realized we live our lives ignorant of the fact that our conscious self awareness is a shared existence, there are two people that make up "Me".

When you understand bhedabheda then you can have that reality opened up to you, you will find that you are not alone inside your very sense of self and mind, there is another person with you at all times who is doing the actual work of thinking, moving, speaking, etc for you.

In the conditioned state we think we are the doers of our activities, we think, we act, we do this and that by our will and desire. This is not true. In fact we are with another person at all times who is doing all that we think we do. When we understand this fully then God doesn't have to hide this essential fact of all of our lives.

I go into this is in detail Here

A warning about what ? Bhakti is meant to bring you to the level of dealing directly with God, one on one, in this life, right now. While poetic concepts of "love" and "feelings" and "sacrifice" are all well and fine, they are mental concepts. Real bhakti begins when you have met God, until then your practice of bhakti is just that, practice.

When you are through practicing you will join the game. But without bhedabheda, you will not be able to meet God here and now, even though h/she is with you at every step.

Bimba-pratibimba-bhaava is the symbolism that Madhva introduces to illustrate the relationship between Brahman and Jiva. The Jiva is a finite reflection (thus depending for its very existence on the Original) of the qualities of the infinite Brahman. The medium of reflection is the jiva's own svaruupa. This ensures a real but unilateral dependence of the Jiva on the Brahman.

From "The Philosophy of Sri Madhvaachaarya" by Dr. BNK Sharma

Page 29: There will be no destruction of the pratibimba [reflection] so long as the contact of the upaadhi is intact. The function of an upaadhi (medium) is to manifest the pratibimba. In the present case, it is the pristine nature of the Jivasvaruupa itself as cit that would suffice, according to Madhva, to manifest itself to itself in its true nature of metaphysical dependence on Brahman and on being endowed with a measure of similarity of attributes (as part of the meaning of the word pratibimba) with its Original (Brahman) without calling to aid the services of any external medium (baahyopaadhi): svayam eva atra pradarshakah cittvaat (Madhva Giitaa Bhaashya 2.18). The power of self-revelation is hidden in the Jiva in the state of samsaara. (Brahmasuutras 3.2.5 and 3.2.19)

Page 306: The term "Bimba-Pratibimba-bhaava" is derived by Madhva from the significant passage in Rig Veda 7.47.18: ruupam ruupam pratiruupam babhuuva tadasya ruupam pratichakshanaaya "With reference to each form [of Jiva], He (the Lord) becomes the original form. His form is for this one (the Jiva) to perceive."

Page 309: The points of contact are the possession by the Jiva, of certain characteristics of reality, consciousness and bliss similar to those of Brahman and depending upon it for them. The points of contrast from ordinary reflection are: (1) not being conditioned by an external medium (upaadhi); (2) not being liable to destruction by virtue of the destruction of such upaadhi; and (3) not being an insentient (lifeless) effect.