This is a response to the last comment of Hare Krishna Das from the Long Distance Runaround post:
You think you know what you are talking about, but the reality is that pretty much everything you have written is a perverted misinterpretation of Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I know you don’t see that because you have been educated to see Gaudiya teachings through the lens of Prabhupada’s teachings. Then you continued learning from people who were either in the same boat as you or had similar views and motivations as Prabhupada. I’m not going to spend my time going over the countless ways that everything-you-think-you-know-about-Gaudiya-teachings-is-wrong, because that is what I have been trying to do with every post since I started this blog.
What I will do, and not again, so don’t waste your time preaching at me anymore, is show you how your idea of what constitutes the higher levels of bhakti, or raganuga bhakti, is totally perverted and is in fact a misconstrued version of vaidhi-bhakti, leading to a perverted idea of what bhakti ultimately is supposed to lead to, i.e. your idea of what God wants in a relationship from us is a perverted form of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
The goal of life is to live as a ragatmika associate of God – a person who lives with God in a close relationship. A ragatmika associate of God doesn’t worship God or “surrender” or serve God in the same way as a vaidhi bhakta.
The goal of bhakti is to develop into a ragatmika bhakta, to develop that mentality and attitude and relationship towards God. There are two types of ‘devotees in practice’ on the way to entering into a ragatmika relationship with God – vaidhi bhaktas and raganuga bhaktas.
Vaidhi-bhakti is bhakti that is motivated by anything other than raga (affection, love). Vaidhi bhaktas are motivated to practice bhakti-yoga or to “serve God” by the desire to gain something from God (through any number of ways, e.g. give charity to sadhus, build temples, serve a guru, do sadhana, be a renunciate, preach to people, etc). They may be motivated by desires for wealth, fame, liberation, freedom from suffering, good karma, a better situation in the next life, etc. If a person has any motivation other than raga, then that person is some type of vaidhi-bhakta. Sometimes there is some mix of the two. A vaidhi-bhakta may have some motivation of raga in their bhakti-yoga practice. Vaidhi bhaktas worship God because they want something from God and they believe that by worshiping God, or “surrendering” or serving God, that God will reward them.
Ragatmika bhaktas worship and serve and surrender to God in the same way that a person treats his or her close friends and lovers. Those relationships are not about trying to gain a reward, they’re about an exchange of friendship and love.
Raganuga bhaktas follow the mood of the ragatmika bhaktas. They don’t worship or serve or surrender to God in the same mood as vaidhi bhaktas, nor do they necessarily do the same activities. Vaidhi bhaktas don’t understand that God wants us to be intimate, wants us to treat God as we would treat our closest friends and lovers. They think they need to worship and serve and surrender to God with awe and reverence, they think they need to show menial, servile, slavish, subservient deference and submission. They think that self-abnegation or self-denial for the worship and submission and service of God will gain them what they want from God, e.g. liberation, heaven, wealth, health, fame, etc. They don’t understand that God doesn’t need anything from them. God isn’t interested in being worshiped as a deity, or anything else that you think God needs to be done by you to “serve” him/her. Those activities are aiding the person doing them, not God. They don’t understand that all God wants is to be as close with us as possible, to be friends and lovers, to be treated as an equal, not as a God on an altar worshiped by fawning sycophants.
The concepts of worship, service, and surrender, to a vaidhi bhakta and to a ragatmika bhakta, are completely different from each other. Just like their motivations are completely different.
A vaidhi bhakta sees worshiping God as a sacred act of seeking mercy in the presence of the awe inspiring Supreme Lord. They bow down, they pray, they prostate and beg for mercy. They may even develop a feeling of worthlessness and see themselves as not worthy of God’s divine mercy.
A ragatmika worships God like a boy or girl worships a friend or lover, e.g. by giving physical pleasures or by entertaining the person in the same way that close friends and lovers treat each when they enjoy together.
A vaidhi bhakti sees surrender and service to God as any of a number of activities which they see as necessary for them to do in order to attain God’s saving merciful grace upon them. It comes in two forms, sadhana and seva. Sadhana is spiritual practices such as reading or hearing from scriptures or sadhus (satsang), meditation, kirtans, deity worship, etc. Seva is physical service. That can manifest in countless activities, e.g. building or working for ashrams or temples, giving money to sadhus or ashrams or temples, cooking and giving out food, preaching, etc.
A ragatmika sees surrender and service to God in the same way as a person sees service to their friends and lovers. To them it means giving each other physical and mental or emotional pleasure, i.e. however close friends and lovers treat each other when they are enjoying with each other.
This is an example of the mentality of a vaidhi bhakta:
Vaidhi bhaktas think they have to have the bhoga ready at the exact time for the deity and that no one can taste the food before it is offered to God or it cannot be offered because it would be offensive. It has to be right on time at the scheduled time, or it is an offense. They think that God needs to be worshiped on an altar in the way that it is done because that is how they believe we should see God, i.e. as a holy pure sacred object that must be protected from ‘contamination’ and who demands submissive perfect worship on time every day, otherwise you are committing a grave offense for which you must beg forgiveness or do an act of contrition.
This is an example of a ragatmika or raganuga bhakta:
He or she cooks some food and will taste the food before serving to make sure it tastes good. They don’t even care about offering it to a deity because they don’t treat God as a deity, they treat God as a friend or lover. Just like you wouldn’t worship your close friends or lover like you worship a deity on an altar – a raganuga bhakta doesn’t treat God any differently than that. A raganuga bhakta isn’t concerned about all the “offenses” that vaidhi bhaktas worry about because they know that you won’t offend a friend or lover if you don’t treat him or her as a deity on an altar who demands worship, submission, and service.
Anyone who tells you that the higher levels of bhakti are about worship, submission, and service, in the way I have described as being particular to vaidhi bhaktas, doesn’t know what they are talking about.
There is absolutely no vaidhi mood at all in ragatmika devotees or a true raganuga bhakta. Vaidhi is the antithesis of real bhakti, it is the antithesis of real friendship and love. Therefore there is no trace of vaidhi in real lila as opposed to some mood of vaidhi in the writings on lila. The vaidhi in those lila writings is there to inspire vaidhi bhaktas to stay on the path of bhakti yoga, it is a teaching instrument for those who need to develop raga. There is some encouragement for the vaidhi mood because vaidhi bhaktas equate devotion with the vaidhi mood. To them bhakti is the vaidhi mood. Raganuga bhaktas need no inspiration from books because they are dealing directly with God from within and from all around. They see beyond the vaidhi mood in lila, they know it is for vaidhi bhaktas. They see beyond the literal meaning of the descriptions of lila in the writings of sastra and from sadhus. An example is in the Krishna lila described in the Bhagavatam. There, in Vraja lila sometimes all of a sudden some gopis will start to philosophically expound on the nature of God, the universe, karma, the ontology of the soul, Krishna tattva, etc. That is there to teach, it’s not what really occurs in real pastimes with ragatmika or raganuga bhaktas. In the same way, some vaidhi mood is seen in the writings of past acharyas when they expound on Radha Krishna rasa-lila. It’s doesn’t exist in real rasa-lila, it’s there to instruct and inspire vaidhi bhaktas.
Thank you for this post, Vrajabhumi!
I’d be interested to hear more about how you see Mahaprabhu’s siksastakam and what’s your interpretation of his poetry.
You’ve written here about the “highest rasa” we can attain with God and from what I understand from your writing, it’s a direct love-relationship instead of the indirect love-service-relationship that is usually preached. I know you’ve written a little about manjari-rasa and sringara-rasa before, and I get that…but I think it’s a subject worthy of more discussion and it’s a little unclear for me still (I’m obviously still at a vaidhi-bhakti level ;)
For example, in your example about the food offering, you said that a ragatmika bhakta will not offer the food to a deity (because they don’t treat God as a deity) but will they offer it in their “heart” to God or how is it done?
Perhaps I’m asking stupid questions but forgive me because I’m not at the raganuga-stage yet…Also, you write about living with Radha-Krishna and loving with them, etc. But if the goal is to have a direct love relationship with Krishna (not manjari-position) then where is Srimati Radharani’s place in the relationship? Does the jiva “share” Krishna with Radha? Or does the jiva have a love relationship with both of them?
Vaisnavi
The Siksastakam shows a progression of moods from vaidhi to raganuga to ragatmika. It starts with glorifying vaidhi sadhana, how chanting can cleanse the heart but that he has no attraction to Krishna, that one should be humble etc. Then it moves into the beginning of raganuga where he says that he doesn’t want anything but to serve Krishna, he just wants to be at Krishna’s feet, he wants to taste the ecstasy of love for Krishna. Then it moves into ragatmika where he is lamenting in separation like a girl separated from her lover, going to the point of saying she will do anything, that she knows Krishna fools around with other girls but she doesn’t care anymore, please just come back.
Prabhupada’s translation is not very good, he puts too much extra stuff in it which changes the mood, for example this is from Sridhar Maharaja’s translation (it’s in one of his books, I don’t know if he actually translated it) of the last verse:
“Krishna may embrace me in love or trample me under His feet. He may break my heart by hiding Himself from me. Let that debauchee do whatever He likes, but He will always be the only Lord of my life.”
That’s a pretty literal translation. This is how Prabhupada or whomever translated the version that he used puts the same verse:
“I know no one but Krishna as my Lord, and He shall remain so even if He handles me roughly by His embrace or makes me brokenhearted by not being present before me. He is completely free to do anything and everything, for He is always my worshipful Lord unconditionally.”
In Prabhupada’s translation a purely ragatmika or raganuga mood is changed into a vaidhi mood by the inclusion of the words I know no one but Krishna as my Lord, worshipful and unconditionally, and the exclusion of debauchee, i.e. a translation of lampata in the verse:
lampaTa mf(%{A})n. covetous , greedy , lustful , desirous of or addicted to (loc. or comp.) Inscr. Ka1v. Pur. ; m. a libertine , lecher , dissolute person , w. ; (%{A}) f. a partic. personification L.
Vaisnavi
You wrote:
Ragatmika devotees are in a direct relationship with Radha Krishna, they don’t offer food to God before you eat like a vaidhi bhakti does. Their relationship with God is as a friend and lover, so eating food is just about enjoying, there is no religious aspect to it. There is no religious aspect (religion is vaidhi) at all to anything in their relationship with God. People in the beginning stages of raganuga may offer their food out of some remaining vaidhi mood, but that will fall away as they develop more intimacy with Radha Krishna.
It depends on the bhava of the jiva. Radha and Krishna are one and the same person. Their real relationship is different than what is described in sastra or by acharyas. Their lila described in sastra or by past acharyas isn’t really giving us a perfect unimpeded vision of what rasa lila is really like. That isn’t their purpose. Although many devotees think that the rasa pastimes written about by the likes of Rupa, Raghunath, Krishna Das, Visvanath, etc, are like direct windows to rasa lila, as if those people were given visions of rasa lila and they just copied what they saw. The purpose of those writings is to inspire vaidhi bhaktas and as meditation tools. They are a type of myth, in the academic sense of myth: a sacred story involving symbols that are usually capable of multiple meanings. Their main purpose is attracting vaidhi bhaktas to practice bhakti yoga, i.e. vaidhi bhaktas will be attracted to try to attain to living in the heavenly rasa lila, and will then be inspired to do what is necessary to attain that heavenly reward.
Those descriptions of rasa lila are therefore meditation tools that can aid vaidhi bhaktas or mixed vaidhi and raganuga bhaktas by giving them a vision of what they are aiming for. Just like a deity form is a meditation tool so that people can visualize God as a human person rather than just as a cosmic energy field like Brahman. As they advance they no longer need aid in their vision because they no longer need an incentive to make them pratice bhakti yoga and they have a good idea of God as a person. When they reach the raganuga stage, when they are qualified, God will reveal the true nature of their bhava and rasa and establish that relationship from within (through paramatma).
The rasa lila described in the writings of the acaryas are repetitive and relatively simple. They are just giving an idea of madhurya rasa through the rasa between Radha and Krishna, therefore there isn’t a great deal of variety going on in those descriptions. An independently wealthy person in todays world could enjoy a much more varied lifestyle of enjoyment than what is written about as rasa lila. The reality of God’s highest existence is that it is all about enjoyment, don’t think that a rich person today has more variety of enjoyment available to him or her than what is available in God’s pleasure pastimes. The actual reality of lila is very different than what has been created as meditation tools for vaidhi bhaktas. The variety and sophistication of the enjoying lifestyle of real lila is very different and vastly superior to what most bhaktas think lila to be all about. As you advance everything will be revealed directly to you.
Thank you, again, for taking the time to answer my questions, Vrajabhumi!
Just reading your explanation about raganuga-bhakti and the stage of ragatmika love for Radha-Krishna makes me want to attain it –and fast! :) How wonderful.
You wrote:
“Radha and Krishna are one and the same person. Their real relationship is different than what is described in sastra or by acharyas.”
Can you write more about this?
And you also wrote:
“The reality of God’s highest existence is that it is all about enjoyment, don’t think that a rich person today has more variety of enjoyment available to him or her than what is available in God’s pleasure pastimes. The actual reality of lila is very different than what has been created as meditation tools for vaidhi bhaktas. The variety and sophistication of the enjoying lifestyle of real lila is very different and vastly superior to what most bhaktas think lila to be all about. As you advance everything will be revealed directly to you.”
Can you tell me more? ;)
Vaisnavi
Radha and Krishna are described here by Raghava Goswami in his Sri Krsna-bhakti-ratna Prakasa
The lifestyle and relationship between Radha and Krishna that is described in scriptures and in the stories written by past acharyas serve a specific purpose. The purpose is to help elevate people to the perfectional stage of existence. What that existence is actually like is not necessarily going to be revealed fully or perfectly or even truthfully in the teachings whose purpose it is to aid you in attaining that reality.
The true nature of the highest reality is not necessarily revealed in the teachings that aid in the development of self-realization because knowing the truth isn’t necessarily going to aid people. For example: When you are sick and are congested you are advised to eat hot and bitter foods such as ginger and peppers, and not eat foods that will make your congestion worse. People who are not self-realized (attained realization of your relationship with God) are like sick people who are given a special diet that will aid them in getting healthy. A healthy diet will also have ginger and peppers, but in general it will be a very different diet than what is given a sick person. The purpose of the stories about Radha and Krishna and their lila is to aid us in becoming self-realized, their purpose isn’t to give us a perfect literal glimpse into the highest reality. Therefore the highest reality isn’t literally revealed in those writings.
Thank you.
What a comprehensive and beautiful quotation! Jaya Radha-Krishna!
When someone says that Radha and Krishna are the same person, or say that Radha has come out of the body of Krishna, I steam and get wildly angry. That is NOT the conclusion of Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy, no matter how many shastric quotes are given as proof. It is hidden impersonalist philosophy.
– Prisni dd
Prisni dd
Why would you claim that if Gaudiya sastras say that Radha and Krishna are one and the same (Prabhupada says the same thing repeatedly) that they are wrong and that it makes you angry? I mean, why does that bother you?
What Raghava Goswami quoted about Radha appearing out of the side of Krishna’s body is purely metaphorical. The point was that Krishna desired to enjoy as a woman and that Radha is Krishna manifested as a woman to fulfill that desire. He quoted a verse which also appears in another form in the Chaitanya Charitamrita and Rupa Goswami’s Lalita Madhava:
From http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/20/182/
The following is one of the first verses of the Chaitanya Charitamrita:
Prabhupada understood this, you hear him always say that there is no difference between Radha and Krishna, as do all past acharyas. Why would you claim that they and the sastra are all teaching “hidden impersonalist philosophy?” (whatever that is supposed to mean)
This is from Prabhupada’s Teachings of Lord Chaitanya:
This is from a purport in Prabhupada’s Chaitanya Charitamrita
I certainly understand the scriptural quotes, and yet I don’t agree with your conclusion.
We take a modern example.
Let’s say you are a young girl, just out of school and is looking for a job. You find one company, run by the creator of that company. He takes you under his wings, and let you start in the company. You don’t know anything of the work, you are to do, let’s say sales-woman, but the company teaches you everything you need to know, and how the company works. Later you advance, and some years later you attains the position of sales woman for the company.
One customer approaches you, the representative of the company, and you present the company product, in exacly the way as the creator of the company would have done. He put great trust in you, since he know that you can do it. So in effect, you are an expansion of the creator. You say anything he would say, and whatever you say he supports.
You are know as the company representative, and can even be called by the company name. Customers don’t understand or even care for your identity as separate from the company.
At this point, does this mean that your whole being was created by the company creator, that you had no individual existence before? That you came out of his body? Metaphorically speaking you did. The customer might think like that. But you know, that you have a separate existence, eternally separate from the company, even though ousiders can’t see it.
That is the meaning of expansion. To have a purpose, and everything, practically the same as who is expanded. Not that your personality was created by the company boss. That is an incomplete understanding.
Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy is tricky with its acintya-beda-abehda tattva. To understand the simeltaneous onness and difference between Radha and Krishna is not simple. Similarly to understand the relationship between Radha and her “expansions” her nearest gopis. The understanding is not “created by”, but rather like he company metaphor. Meaning, that when you become one in consciosucness with Krishna, in complete Krishna consciousness, you also become like an expansion of Krishna, from the outside. You don’t say anything that Krishna don’t agree on, and whatever you say Krishna supports you on. And yet, you always have your individual identity.
Radha and Krishna are eternally two, but also eternally one. There have never been a time when they did not have their intimate relatinship, but also have never been a time when they were one. They are two personalities.
The scriptural quotes have to be understood with that in mind. Outsiders, those who are not Gaudiya Vaisnavas, will understand it in an external way, and some of the scriptural quotes might be to help them in their understanding. But Radha-Krishna bhaktas know their true identity, and are never confused.
Krishna says in bhagavad gita that we all are separate living entities, that are never born and will never die. Do you think that we are superior to Radharani? That she was created at one point of time, and therefore also will have die at another point of time?
Of course, she was never born, and therefore will never die, just like Krishna, just like us, and all the kings. That is fundamental in Gaudiya Vaisnava philosophy. Also how to understand that something that is different, can be one. That whole clue to that riddle is in the acintya-beda-abedha tattva philsophy. One and different at the same time.
– Prisni devi dasi
[...] This is a reply to Prisni’s comment on the We Used To Play For Silver, Now We Play For Life [...]
What is difference between ragatmika and raganuga…i did not catch that?
Kannadasan
Ragatmika bhaktas are those who live with Radha Krishna. Raganuga is a type of sadhana, and it is where one approaches bhakti-yoga practice with the mentality of intimacy towards Radha Krishna. Also in raganuga-bhakti rules and regulations are not seen as necessary, whereas in vaidhi-bhakti they are seen as essential.
A good example to see the difference is how ISKCON teaches people that unless you follow the “4 regulative principles” of vegetarianism, no intoxication of any kind, no sex except for procreation, no gambling, then you are subhuman and cannot understand God and will be punished by God. They also insist that unless you follow the rules and regulations of vaidhi sadhana-bhakti such as chanting a lot every single day; getting up very early (4.a.m.) every single day to do deity worship and kirtan; etc — that you cannot advance in self-realization very much. Also they stress developing the mood of a fallen servant begging to do service for Krishna as the mood one should adopt in ones attitude towards God and in mantra meditation.
Whereas a raganuga-bhakta doesn’t believe any of that. He or she may actually follow all those rules and regulations, or maybe not, but they don’t see their advancement as dependent on that. Also their mood is that of approaching Radha Krishna with intimacy, as equals.