Vaishnavism 2 - Universalist Radha-Krishnaism

A ContemporaryScholarly Survey ofRadha-Krishna DevotionSteve BohlertCopyright © Steve Bohlert 2013All Rights ReservedSky River PressPahoa, Hawai’i1

A Contemporary Scholarly Survey ofRadha-Krishna DevotionSeveral years ago, I read Vaishnavism:Contemporary Scholars Discuss the GaudiyaTradition, Folk Books, 1992 edited by Steven J.Rosen, foreword by Edward C. Dimock, Jr.. Ibenefited from it, and wrote an essay inresponse that I published on my website. Ireread the essay in 2013 to prepare it for abook of my collected writings, and it does anexcellent job of showing the solid theologicalbackground of Universalist Radha-Krishnaismfrom a traditional Chaitanya Vaishnavperspective.I published it on my stevebohlert.com site,but when my devotional writings migratedfrom there to here, it doesn’t seem to havemade it, or at least I can’t find it. I amrepublishing a reedited, updated edition as afree pdf download, since it is forty-two pagesand can be read on a variety of readers at yourconvenience.Rosen (Satyaraja Dasa, a disciple of A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami) interviewed scholarswith expertise in different areas of the fieldand put together a comprehensive survey ofthe Chaitanya Vaishnav tradition. I commenton some of the most pertinent points:2

evolutionary, ought one not be a revolutionarytoo? One must question why A.C.Bhaktivedanta Swami placed so muchemphasis on establishing Varnasrama in theWest.8. Dr. Chatterjee: . . . he preferred toassociate with devout Vaisnavas only,irrespective of their caste status. You see,he was trying to teach that the real issue isspirituality--universal, nonsectarianspirituality. And all other concerns, howeverrighteous they may be are only secondaryor subservient. This was his teaching.” (15)Does this sound similar to Jesus? However,certain people who claim to be his followersformed a sectarian cult in his name andpromote varnashram.9. Dr. Witzel: . . . I think it is clear that as faras the Rig Veda goes, Indra is a much moreprominent god. This, of course, has to dowith the prevailing mythology and also withthe needs of the people at the time.Different divinities are emphasizedaccording to the insights of various seersand the requirements of the localpeople . . . From a strictly scholarly point ofview, however, Vishnu goes through atransformation, from what is perceived as aminor god to the all-important divinity onesees today in the practice of Vaishnavism.(24)This points to the developmental processand relative nature of the tradition. It is not6

fixed and unchanging. What are the needs ofthe people we teach today?10. Dr. Smith: . . . If anything, the story [TheRamayana] brings to the fore theambiguities of understanding appropriatebehavior , or dharma, in the abstract--forthere are many verses which suggest thateach individual’s dharma is different indifferent situations, and the challenge is todeport oneself in any given circumstanceaccording to one’s own peculiar dharma(called sva-dharma). (31)Thus, one’s religious practices and ethicsare situationally based. Naturally, a twentyfirstcentury Westerner’s religion will bedifferent from that of an Indian, especiallyfrom a different century. We each have ourown particular individual path to follow--goingwhere no one has gone before.11. Dr. Hiltebeitel: . . . the Vedas were to bebrought into a new formulation for a newage. This is the Mahabharata. This is theVeda for a new population, for the massesand for people of all castes andpersuasions. . . . It is for a new time and foran extended population. And of course itteaches bhakti--devotional love--to thatpopulation. (52)This again shows the developmental,adaptive nature of the Vedic teachings.Certainly, they can be further developed andadapted for contemporary Westerners as Ihave done.7

12. Dr. Hiltebeitel: . . . Krishna is supposedto set the stage for some kind ofcatastrophe with the most subtle grin.That’s one of the things that you can’t missif you know what the iconography lookslike...the Mahabharata always plays withambiguity and uncertainty. There are gooddivine forces who are in the Kaurava campas well as in the Pandava camp. (54-55)This points to the enigmatic, ambiguousnature of Krishna who does not see things inthe dualistic way we do but brings death anddestruction to all. His sport is sometimes prettyrough.13. Dr. Hospital: . . . ”sport” isRadhakrishnan’s translation of lila...It’s clearthat in the Bhagavata version the Lordcreates as a part of his lila...Thisexplanation is an attempt to deal with thetheological problem of why God, who iscomplete and fulfilled, comes to create. Andthe emphasis is on the fact that God doesn’tneed to create, that this is not somethingthat is done because there is a lack in God.Rather it is something which just comesspontaneously out of who that SupremePerson is. It comes from His inherentnature. (66-67)This leads to the conclusion that everythingis divine sport or play, including our lives. Weare all minor expansions of Radha-Krishna, theoriginal feminine and masculine principles, andthey enjoy ever new pastimes through us.8

14. Dr. Hospital: . . . I think they make avery good case for what people have longsuspected: that many of the ideas of theBhagavata are coming out of the SouthIndian tradition. (71)This was Bhaktivinode Thakur’s conclusionin the nineteenth century. He employed thistype of scholarly, analytical approach to thescriptures and the developing tradition.15. Dr. Hospital: The incomprehensibleholding together of difference and nondifference.In the Bhagavata, God is bothbeyond action and he is acting, beyondqualities and at the same time he is the onewho bears all magnificent, auspiciousqualities. (72)The Bhagavata is the basis for Chaitanya’sphilosophy, and portrays God-dess as anincomprehensible reconciliation of opposites.16. SR: . . . Jiva Gosvami met with Jahnavadevi. . . and had extensive discussions withher. It was she who established murtis ofRadha next to the Krishna images in Vrajaand it was she who influenced Jiva to sendthe bhakti-sastras to Bengal with Srinivasa,Narottama, and Shyamananda. (82)This further establishes the major influenceJahnava had on development of the tradition.It is interesting that in sixteenth century India,a woman was able play such an important role,and today many western devotee women stillfight for equality. Where is the honoring of thedivine feminine?9

17. Dr. Hawley: . . . While sampradayaconsiderations are important, a sense ofsharing and learning is even moreimportant, and the lilas themselves, ofcourse, transcend all boundaries. So there isa sense of universality there. The truth ofKrishna’s lila is the bottom line, and exactlyhow one sees it may be dependentsomewhat on one’s sectarian affiliation, butit is even more dependent on that person’sgrasp of reality. (88)Dr. Hawley speaks of the accessibility ofRadha Krishna’s pastimes, including the rasadance, for the ordinary people of Braja who getto experience them through plays performedregularly by different troupes. These pastimesare also experienced though poetry and songs,which are sung by many. The point is, oneneed not pass through prerequisite stagesbefore experiencing the pastimes.18. Dr. Davis: . . . in bhakti poetry, Bryantsaid, the central effort of the poet is to getthe audience to participate directly in thereality that he’s trying to convey. . . .Jayadeva would draw us as an audience intothe poem and into this world of bhakti.Here, specifically, it was the world ofVrindavana. (91)Poetry is the language of devotion. Enteringinto the pastimes of the Divine Couple directly,as a participant is a goal of the practitioner.Reading and rereading the poetical descriptions10

of the pastimes by great devotees opens adoor to that transcendental realm.19. Dr. Davis: . . . oftentimes the poetidentifies himself with Radha, or a gopi, . . .it’s a kind of precursor to the theologicalsystem wherein one identifies with aninhabitant of Vrindavana. (94)This refers to the practice of most ChaitanyaVaishnavas, which Lalita Prasad Thakur taughtme. How are you to relate to Radha-Krishna ifyou do not know who you are? If one aspiresto engage in personal pastimes with Radha-Krishna, one must have a personal spiritualidentity to interact in.20. Dr. Davis: . . . even in those momentswhen Radha was in despair because Krishnahad left her--at the very core of her despair,the source of her despair, Krishna waspresent. (95)The theme of love in separation is dominantin Chaitanya Vaishnavism. The point is even inour separation, Krishna is present and there isunion. Our longing is a pull Radha-Krishnacannot resist.21. Dr. Davis: . . . this was not poetry writtenin libraries; . . . it was poetry that came outof life. I wanted to show that many or mostof the bhakti poets were intensepractitioners, that the poetry was often anoutcome of intense devotional experience.(97)This validates the revelatory nature of thebest devotional poetry. Most of us long for such11

experiences, and we can experience themvicariously through the poetry.22. Dr. Stewart: Murari Gupta’s Sanskrit workis the oldest. Most people seem to feel itwas completed right about the timeCaitanya died . . . There is also evidence inthe book to suggest that he had startedwriting the book long before Caitanya died,and that he had actually gotten permissionfrom Caitanya to do it. And this is, I think,pretty significant. . . . He is probably theonly biographer who knew Caitanya reallywell. Everyone else was writing fromsecond-hand knowledge. (102)It’s interesting that Murari’s Sri KrishnaCaitanya-caritamrita is mostly eclipsed byKrishnadas Kaviraja’s Caitanya-caritamrita, inBengali, which is a later, more doctrinallydeveloped work from the Vrindaban school.23. Dr. Stewart: . . . the biographers musthave been working with patterns that wouldnot be considered historically accurate in awestern, more positivist sense, but areformulaic . . . And that raises all kinds ofquestions about the way these texts arewritten . . . Part of the problem is that theseauthors tended to write according to certainacceptable patterns. Things were alwayspresented in a very predictable way. And todeviate from that in some respects wouldhave at that time raised eyebrows. Nowtoday, of course, we have a differentstandard for judging these things. (109-10)12

This argues against taking Chaitanya’sbiographies literally. While having some basisin history, they are theological documentsmeant to spread the faith and portrayChaitanya in the same light as other luminariesof his time. They also differ in theirpresentation of events in Chaitanya’s life.24. Dr. Stewart: . . . people did not alwaysknow exactly how to interpret Caitanya’slife . . . certain changes have taken place inthe tradition until the community finallysettles on what it finds to be an acceptablestandard. . . . The Caitanya-caritamrita.(112)Again we see a developing tradition similarto the four gospels. What gets included in thecanon, and what is considered authoritative?Just as Chaitanya’s early followers had tointerpret who he was, we need to interpretwho he is for us. Perhaps it’s a matter ofreframing.25.“Dr. Stewart: . . . when Caitanya was firstbelieved to be God, and was written aboutin those terms--shortly after his death--youhad many people with the hope that hewould lead them to an overthrow of theincreasingly dominant Muslim community.This political dimension is most certainlypresent . . . martial images provedcompletely untenable in the socio-politicalreality of post Caitanya Bengal . . . youhave a shift from the aisvarya, thesovereign side, to an emphasis on13

madhurya, the sweet side, from a form thatwas martial and threatening to a form thatwas innocuous and accommodating. (114)We see a nationalistic, messianicexpectation in the early biographies change toa more spiritualized, non-threatening faith inthe later biographies due to increased Muslimcontrol over the Hindus who now had littlepolitical power but still had freedom in theirbedroom and private life--not unlike living in amodern national security state. It’s importantto see the context within which the traditiondeveloped to understand it. Everything iscontextual or situational. Then we must ask,“How does this apply in my situation?”26. Dr. Stewart: . . . Manjari sadhana seemsto be an indirect response, . . . to . . . aneed that would give you a style of worshipthat would enable you to locate your realand true personality into the realm ofKrishna. ‘Caitanya is not here anymore, sowe want to go where Krishna is.’ And thatthen is the interior landscape where thedevotee works his way to heaven. . . .Manjari sadhana relies on an interior modeof realization. You do not have to go outonto the streets beating drums or anythinglike that--something that might upset thelocal rulers. It is done privately, behindclosed doors. So you get a shift, then, frompublic practices to more and more privatepractices. (115)14

A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami’s followers usedthe more martial model of Chaitanya marchingon the Kazi’s residence as a model for theirchanting in the streets. This gave them wideexposure and a number of converts, but it alsomade them an object of ridicule by the mediaand general public. I personally find them to bean embarrassment, and do my best to distancemyself. That sort of strident evangelism is nothelpful. I think they had to change their tacticsafter the openness of the 1960s. I don’t knowwhat they are doing today, but I doubt if it ismanjari bhav.27. Dr. Stewart: . . . we can see a verycomplex accommodation-process, where theform of ritual, the form of practice, adaptsitself to a changing environment. (116)Again, the contextual nature of the traditionis undeniably there from the beginning. It didnot form and grow in a vacuum. Now it needsto be accommodated to western sensibilitiesand lifestyles.28. Dr. Stewart: . . . Ansas and avataras,those parts of God, are certainly legitimate,and Caitanya was those things, and theYugavatara as well, but they werecoincident with and subject to a much moreimportant descent, which was svayambhagavan, God Himself. (117)Here we have a leading scholar in the fieldaccepting the divinity of Chaitanya.29. Dr. Stewart: . . . androgyny was verymuch perceived to be part of Caitanya’s15

nature; . . . and it is primarily understoodthrough the manifestation of bhava.” (117)Chaitanya not only manifested as theembodiment of God-dess, but also as the idealdevotee for us to model ourselves after. We arealso called to develop our masculine andfeminine sides. This allows us to be balanced,whole people.30. Dr. Stewart: . . . The philosophical worksof Jiva . . . lay the foundation forestablishing Gaudiya Vaisnavism as asampradaya, an authorized lineage. Thislends the group an institutional authoritythat is easily recognizable by any Vaishnavaor any other knowledgeable practitioner inIndia or around the world. Having thatphilosophical system at its base establishesan identity which is unmistakable. (118)Here we have balance between right andleft brain, emotion and reason. Thisphilosophical system is very complete andadaptable. It is able to hold it’s own in today’sworld of ideas. These excerpts show that myUniversalist Radha-Krishnaism is firmlygrounded in the Chaitanya Vaishnav traditionand carries on those core teachings in acontemporary western way.31. Dr. Stewart: . . . The Gosvamis musthave discussed these things constantly. Andthis is the beauty of community. It isunfortunate that scholars do not do thiskind of thing more often. I think that whenyou do get together people, who have16

overlapping but different expertises, you getjust his kind of creativity. In this case theyare just like us--they worked on theseideas, they thought about them, and theyexplored them together. (119)This kind of collaboration is a model for us,as we make the teachings of the Goswamisrelevant for today’s world. I use the tool ofdialoging with authors like this to create abroader understanding than my own. I inviteothers to join in this discussion.32. Dr. Stewart: . . . they start off as purelymechanical rituals, perhaps, but fairly soonthey become so second-nature that youcease to think about them as an act youmust perform, but rather simply what youdo naturally--it is what you are. And in thatprocess you gradually assimilate thesepractices to the point where you couldalmost say they animate themselves. Now,at this point you have a real subtletransition from a purely mechanical practiceto a practice that is finally driven by whatcan only be described as a spontaneous,uncontrollable love. (120)Here Dr. Stewart gives a beautifuldescription of the transition from regulativedevotion to natural devotion.33. Dr. Stewart: . . . At this point, one isready to follow in the footsteps of one ofKrishna’s eternal associates--one isconsumed by passion, which leads oneirresistibly to discover one’s true17

identity . . . This is a spiritual form thatenables you to participate, hopefullydirectly, in the lilas of Krishna. (121)This is the goal of the spiritual practices.One cultivates one’s identity and relationshipby absorbing oneself in the pastimes of Radha-Krishna.34. Dr. Stewart: And I think that the dramasof Rupa, of Krishnadasa, and of laterGaudiya dramatists as well--everyone ofthose are, really, revelations of a very highorder . . . what the practice is supposed toproduce, at some point you no longersimply relive the lilas that are described inthe Puranas and so forth. Rather, you arereally conducting yourself as yourself inthose lilas directly. That gives you, then, theopportunity to see things never beforereported. (122)These descriptions of the pastimes arecertainly spiritual revelations. However, whenthey are communicated through language,they are limited by language, culture, and ourmental capacity. Therefore in my meditations, Isee things in a much more contemporarysetting, and thus the Divine Couple’s pastimesexpand infinitely as I and others engageourselves in in them acting freely.If the language of these plays were notchanged, I could not understand them. If wecan change the language, why not some of thecultural mores and accouterments, so thatwestern devotees may more easily enter into18

this world of Radha-Krishna? If it is going to bea universal religion, it needs to be freed fromIndian culture and trappings.35. Dr. Stewart: . . . there is a tremendousamount of theological consistency in thetradition as a whole, and that is one ofGaudiya Vaishnavism’s most impressivepoints. (125)As I adapted this tradition to the West, Imaintained the theological basis whileinterpreting and applying it differently--as anyliving tradition must do.36. Dr. Sailley: . . . The Vaishnava-Sahajiyabelieves that Radha and Krishna exist, in asense, in every woman and man. So whenthere is union between the sexes, as inintercourse, they are replicating, if you will,a divine occurrence. So the Sahajiyas see itas a spiritual phenomenon. . . . a sect ofVaishnava-Sahajiyas developed that cameto see the union of Radha and Krishna assomehow paradigmatic of male-femaleunion in the world. They saw themacrocosm reflected in the microcosm . . .(144-45)A sahajiya is a follower of “the natural way.”A good healthy, natural attitude toward sex ishelpful if one is trying to establish a personal,erotic relationship with God-dess. There is oneset of practices that can be done with the outerbody, and others that are done within. CertainIndian sects of sahajiyas took their extramaritalritual sex too far. Sex engaged in by a19

committed, loving couple is more like the sexengaged in by Radha-Krishna, who are one,and in the Brahma-vaivarta Purana, aremarried by Brahma. Of course, we are finiteexpansions of Radha-Krishna who exist in eachof us. They are the supreme paradigmaticindividuals. Therefore, I reworked theirpastimes to dispense with certaindysfunctional, Indian cultural models. Our lovemaking, expands Radha Krishna’s play as theyenjoy through us.37. Dr. Brooks: Caitanya’s movement reacheda highpoint with Bhaktivinoda; he rekindledthe flame, so to speak, and he brought out,to newer heights, whatever excellence thetradition knew in earlier days . . . he workedhard to reestablish the covered if not lostteachings of the Gaudiya Vaishnavaacaryas. . . . He was really a visionary, insome sense, in the same way that Caitanyawas. The parallels with Bhaktivinoda’srediscovery of Caitanya’s birthplace andCaitanya’s own visionary discovery ofVrindavana are uncanny. As Caitanyareclaimed Krishna, so Bhaktivinodareclaimed Caitanya. (149-50)This is quite an accolade of my grand-guruthat is certainly justified. I feel honored torepresent his true line in the West and reclaimit for everyone in a universalist way.38. Dr. Brooks: . . . Someone who was in theworld but not of it, Bhaktivinoda was aproductive member of society and was in a20

sense integrated into the upper strata ofBritish India. He knew how to give Gaudiyaconclusions to his contemporaries, to thosewho were given to, if we can use a vagueterm, Westernization. He himself wasWesternized to a certain extent. He hadreceived a Western, English education. Hestudied law and he was a civil servant.(151)Bhaktivinode is a paradigmatic individual forme. His son, my guru, Lalita Prasad Thakur,also was a civil servant and became personalsecretary to the governor of Bengal. Afterretirement, he more fully devoted himself tospiritual practice, like his father-guru. I alsolived an active life in business, politics, andreligion. After retiring and moving to mysecluded forest home, I am better able tofocus on the meditative process Lalita Prasadtaught me.39. Dr. Brooks: . . . I think it’s interesting tonote that he [Bhaktivinode] studiedChristianity and the other world religions. Iimagine that there were these personalquestions that he was trying to resolvehimself. Ultimately, of course, he concludedthat Gaudiya Vaishnavism revealed thesame truth that is found in all religions butto a much deeper degree. But he did thisafter making a study of the other religions,which is significant, and he maintained ahealthy respect for all genuinely spiritualrevelations. (152)21

This is my experience and conclusion as well.Bhaktivinode was a universalist like me.40. Dr. Brooks: . . . Bhaktivinoda felt thatVaisnavism had been abandoned, at leastby the educated people. The literaturewasn’t available to them. Kirtana,particularly sankirtana, was denigrated. Thepeople in general felt that only those ofloose morals followed these practices. So,he had a lot to contend with. (152)Today, there is much more literatureavailable than there was 30 years ago.However, sankirtan is still denigrated in themass media. People feel Hare Krishna devoteesare a group of kooks in a cult, and I have toagree. I also have a lot to contend withpresenting this teaching to educated people.41. Dr. Brooks: . . . Certainly Bhaktivinodawas similarly a charismatic prophet, in asense. . . . Now I’m using that term rathertechnically. When I look at the developmentor the resurgence of social movements andreligious movements, I think a very aptmodel to look at is the anthropologicalconcept of a revitalization movement . . .this kind of movement emerges when thereis a breakdown in the culture, when theculture isn’t working for a large number ofpeople. In a sense we can look at everyreligion in its nativity and see it asresponding to the dissatisfaction of thepeople involved. Now, what is needed is arecognition by individuals that they are not22

satisfied, psychologically and materially . . .And spiritually, certainly. (153)I am starting a revitalization movementbased on my own dissatisfaction with thestatus quo of Chaitanya Vaishnavism in theWest as well as the status quo of the US. AsBhaktivinode’s follower, I similarly try to adapthis teachings to my contemporary situation. Ibelieve others similarly yearn for such arenewal to take place today.42. Dr. Brooks: . . . I think that if we look atthe spread of Vaishnavism since his time,we have to say that he gave it real focus,and, certainly, he was the real generator ofthe idea that Vaishnavism was a universalreligion, that it had the potential toproselytize, to draw other people in. Thisnot only echoes the mood of Caitanya butfunctions quite positively in Indian society,where some people are denied access tosalvation because of their birth status. Soit’s appealing on that level. I thinkBhaktivinoda was consciously prophetic inthe sense that Vaishnvaism, CaitanyaVaishnavism, wasn’t limited to one sectionof India. It was truly universal in scope.(153)This universal appeal inspired Bhaktivinodeto write in English and send his books to theWest. It inspired Lalita Prasad to send me backto the West to preach. It inspires myadaptation of it to contemporary westernculture. I also prefer the term Chaitanya23

Vaishnavism to Gaudiya Vaishnavism because Iam not Bengali.43. Dr. Brooks: . . . Bhaktivinoda basicallysaid we need to get rid of all of theseoutward symbols of cast. He burned thesacred thread and said that, more or less,birth status, birth group or caste itself,doesn’t matter; it’s not important. What isimportant is the quality of your devotion.(155)I agree with this whole heartedly. I wearneither sacred thread, tulsi beads, or tilak. I donot try to live up to Indian brahminicalstandards. Such distinctions put up walls ratherthan open doors. I am a casteless nonsectariandevotee of Radha-Krishna.44. “Dr. Brooks:...Bhaktivinoda wasn’t soconcerned with creating brahmana as hewas in giving everyone access to thereligion and de-emphasizing cast. (156)It’s too bad A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami triedturning Westerners into brahmins, followingthe example of his guru Bhaktisiddhanta, whomade any qualified person a brahmin. It’s veryunnatural for us as well as unnecessary in theWest to practice such standards. Bhaktivinodesaid that in the West, we should adapt Westernstandards for clergy, which I did.45. Dr. Brooks: It is important that he[Bhaktivinode] sent books to the West andbegan a sort of proselytizing mission. It’s anexample of his vision that the Gaudiyasampradaya, the religion of Caitanya, was24

capable of being the universal religion thatthe scriptures talked about, that it had thequalities, it had the attributes, of being oneof the great religions, a panacea for allmankind. . . . He was using his own Englishtraining to begin the process ofdisseminating cross-culturally what he feltwas this universal religion. (157-8)I share this vision, and it is what motivatesmy work. Bhaktivinode took it as far as hecould, being a nineteenth century Bengali. Trueindigenization must be done by indigenouspeople. My graduate studies taught me how tointerpret ancient religion for today’s people,and that is what I did with Universalist Radha-Krishnaism.46. Dr. Brooks: . . . The model of religion, inall branches of Hinduism, especially, is avery individual experience. The model is thedevoted individual seeking out a guru. Andthe relationship between the guru and thedevotee is an individual relationship. Peoplehave different personalities and the guruhas to be sensitive about how they can bestbe taken, throughout this life, and achievemokshsa eventually, or further, love forKrishna. What is the best process for eachdisciple? That’s up to the qualified guru. So,in a sense, the institutionalization of bhaktireligion is something that a lot of peopledon’t hook into. (162)I work outside of institutional religion. I seemost organized religion as a blight on spiritual25

progress, especially when cookie cutter, onesize fits all prescriptions are given. I work withstudents individually and guide them fromwhere they are in a manner consistent withholistic growth--not as a guru, but a westernspiritual teacher, guide, and friend.47. Dr. Kinsley: . . . when Caitanya leavesPuri to go south, one is reminded of Krishnaleaving Vraja. Just as the gopis expresseddistress at Krishna’s leaving, so you haveCaitanya’s associates feeling similaremotions. This all serves to tie Caitanya intothe avatara concept--to his followers, he isthe embodiment of Krishna. In fact, he isRadha and Krishna combined. (180)If we are followers of Radha-Krishnacombined, shouldn’t we also combine Radha-Krishna, the archetypal female-male, withinourselves? As I say in Universalist Radha-Krishnaism:On one level for men, developing an identityas Radha’s girlfriend involves getting intouch with the anima and developing theirfeminine, spiritual side. Attaining anandrogynous balance between masculineand feminine natures promotes wholenessin both men and women. Radha-Krishnaand Chaitanya’s examples benefit the worldas it suffers from feuding, patriarchalmonotheisms that worship a male Godwithout a consort. (133)48. Dr. Kinsley: . . . [Chaitanya] meets ahouseholder named Kurma. He tells this26

man, who wants to leave hearth and hometo travel with him, that it is totallyunnecessary, that one can stay in thesanctity of one’s home and still effectivelypractice the tenets of Vaishnavism. So, thisis instructive for those who are not inclinedto early sannyasa. (181)I encourage my students to live a full lifeand not practice artificial renunciation. We actaccording to our nature while constantlyrefining that nature as we develop ourrelationship with Radha-Krishna. It is notnecessary to totally disrupt one’s life to be adevotee.49. Dr. Entwistle: . . . Krishnadasa KavirajaGosvami was writing quite a long time afterthe events had actually taken place. So it islikely that he combined oral traditions withwhat he knew . . . So he was naturallygiving a general or approximate account. Idon’t think you can hold him on every word.After all, he’s trying to convey the“essence,” or the “nectar,” of the acts ofCaitanya. (196)This is a good description of the situationthat guides our interpretation of these stories.They are not eyewitness accounts, but KrishnaDas interviewed and studied with first handwitnesses of and participants in Chaitanya’spastimes. Of course, he also adds his own spinas he puts it all together to form thefoundational document for ChaitanyaVaishnavism.27

50. Dr. Klostermaier: . . . Vaishnavism, likeChristianity, is a living religion with millionsof adherents. It is numerically the largestsegment of modern Hinduism, with a historygoing back thousands of years. So we arenot talking about some small sect but,rather, mainstream Hinduism. . . .Vaishnavism is as pervasive in India asChristianity is in the Western countries. Itrepresents traditional Hinduism and claimsto contain all that is genuinely Hindu. SoVishnu worship or, later, the worship ofKrishna, is something very much akin to theworship of God or, later, Jesus, in theJudaeo-Christian tradition. (219-20)Pointing out these similarities is a good way tointroduce Vaishnavism to the West.51. Dr. Klostermaier: . . . Shankara, forexample, takes Upanishadic texts andexplains them in an impersonalistic sort ofway; Ramanuja takes those same texts andgives them a personalistic gloss. The samesort of diversity exists in the Christiantradition, and there have been majortheological schools that have emphasizedone way of viewing things over and againstanother. Basically, of course, this all comesdown to the failing of our language or ourfundamental inability to understand theinfinite. Neither the personal nor theimpersonal image is fully adequate--Godtranscends all human conceptions. He or28

she must include both and exist beyondboth. (221)It is a difference of emphasis thatdistinguishes my teachings from those of otherChaitanya Vaishnavs. If we limit God-dess towhat we are able to describe, that idea of Goddessis too small. God-dess certainly includespersonal and impersonal, male and female, butis much more as well. God-dess is both/and,plus a lot more.52. Dr. Klostermaier: . . . The Canticle ofSolomon and the Gita-govinda of Jayadevaagree both in form and in spirit--and in agreat variety of ways. . . . There is also aChrist-bhakti literature, if you will, thatarose in the late middle ages. . . . St. John’sDark Night of the Soul . . . could be seen asa Christian version of viraha-bhakti or loveof God in the mood of separation. . . .Bonaventure . . . His perspectiveaccentuates feeling and emotion more thanthe intellect. And I think . . . even aparticularly rigorous thinker like JivaGosvami, . . . feeling and emotion areconsidered much more important than theintellect. (222-3)These are just a few correspondencesbetween Christianity and Vaishnavism. Thereare certainly many more.53. Dr. Klostermaier: . . . The Westerntheological context in which the love ofRadha and Krishna could perhaps be bestunderstood is precisely that of trinitarian29

theology. For the Christian, the Trinityrepresents the deepest mystery of faith.(225)This shows that the Godhead is basically aloving family, and that the love exchangedbetween them is the real essence of their beingas with Radha-Krishna.54. Dr. Klostermaier: . . . Caitanya himselfwas eventually seen as a raving madman byall but his most intimate followers . . .divine love cannot be understood byEveryman. It is a cherished goal, and onethat is rarely attained. In Vaishnavism andin Christianity you have examples of saintswho have achieved this goal--but it is not soeasily attained. (227)Striving and longing to attain this goal arewhat count. We cannot attain it on our own;we depend on the mercy and grace of Goddessto bestow divine love, if not in this life, inthe next life when we are free of this mortalbody.55. Dr. O’Connell: . . . Use your ears, useyour eyes to see the image of the deity! Useyour voice--all of these senses--to build upand sustain an all-encompassing awarenessof the Divine. It is called smarana or‘remembrance.’ It is not simply looking backat the past. You make the awarenesspresent, right here and now. (232)The body and senses need not be negated,they may be engaged in helping us rememberRadha-Krishna constantly, which is the aim of30

all spiritual practices. We should not simplylook back to the great persons and revelationsof the past, but see the Divine in all thingshere and now while developing a lovingpersonal relationship with God-dess.56. Dr. O’Connell: . . . It becomes Raganugawhen the motivation shifts. Externally youmight still do the same things . . . But themotivation has shifted from merelyfollowing good advice, or injunctions, to aninner longing, an intense desire. You reallyfeel it. You want to do these things. (234)In the beginning, it may be necessary for adevotee to follow some rules and regulationsuntil one gets a taste for devotional practices.Once one has a taste for them and a longing topersonally serve Radha Krishna, one mayspontaneously follow one’s inner promptings.57. Dr. O’Connell: . . . the development ofthis raganuga system is a significant part ofthe Caitanyaite tradition, . . . It is animportant elaboration on the principle ofsadhana. (235)It is unfortunate that most Vaishnavateachers in the West discourage raganugadevotion, rather than encouraging theirstudents to advance to this higher platform.Perhaps they fear losing control.58. Dr. O’Connell: . . . VisvanathaCakravarti . . . emphasizes that when and ifone goes from vaidhi to raganuga, one mayengage in all of the same practices ofsadhana or discipline as before, but only if31

one finds them helpful. If not, one may dropthem. (235)I’ve practiced raganuga bhakti, which I callnatural devotion, for over almost forty years. Ifollow practices that work for me at the time,and leave the rest. This is a more mature stageof devotion, and one may be expected to actresponsibly under the self control of one’sconscience or inner teacher.59. Dr. Kapoor: . . . The rationale behind theGaudiya view is that God has theinconceivable power of reconciling theirreconcilable. This enables the absolute torise above our imperfect and contradictorynotions of qualified and unqualifiedBrahman and allows them to be reconciledin a higher synthesis . . . even to say thatBrahman is inexpressible or unthinkable isto say or think something about it. (240)This is a useful and important “both/and”way of looking at things. The Absolute, is aparadox of opposites reconciled into acomplete whole. It also nullifies thepersonalist/impersonalist split that exists insome groups.60. Shrivatsa Goswami: . . . acintyabhedabheda applies in every case. You giveme any situation: political, historical,religious, devotional, cognitive, and I willimmediately demonstrate to you howacintya bhedabheda applies and how itgives meaning. (254)32

It is interesting how Goswami expands theuse of this idea as a general principleapplicable to all life. I see what he means.61. Shrivatsa Goswami: . . . CharlesHartshorne . . . showed that reality is multivalued.Achintya bhedabheda--he detailed avery similar truth to what was expressed bySri Caitanya and Jiva Gosvami, but inWestern jargon, of course. (255)This an interesting parallel that can be usedto develop Chaitanya’s philosophy incontemporary Western terms. Hartshorne is aprocess philosopher, and I employ processtheology in my writings.62. Shrivatsa Goswami: . . . Sri Caitanyachose those who were materially powerful--who were qualified for the project ofresurrecting Vrindabana. . . . Mahaprabhudid not underestimate the importance ofpower and politics . . . You can’t say thatpower and politics are necessarily a badthing. It depends on their utilization in theservice of Krishna-prema. This is SriCaitanya’s teaching . . . Aristotle gave usthe wrong idea: that reality can becompartmentalized . . . But reality doesn’twork in that way. Concepts overlap . . . thehuman experience is holistic--everything isinterdependent and included. (258)Goswami points out how powerful the sixVrindaban Goswamis were and then goes on tosay we must not compartmentalize life but liveholistically--be generalists more than33

specialists. While I do not have much faith inour political system and do not want to beinvolved in politics per se, I do think we needto address the important issues of the day.Otherwise, our silence implies support of thestatus quo.63. Dr. Beck: . . . The entire Bhagavatapurana (18,000 verses) has beentraditionally believed to be an expansion offour ‘seed’ verses, which themselves wereconsidered to be an expansion of the VedicGayatri mantra . . . the Gayatri is anexpansion from ‘OM.’ So, properly chanted,the whole Bhagavata is evoked with thisseed syllable. (279)This is one of the reasons I chant Omconstantly.64. Dr. McDaniel: . . . Gaudiya Vaishnavasare quite distinct in their approach becausethey focus on the stages of emotion withinmystical experience . . . it’s really verymuch a sort of love-oriented mysticism . . .The texts explain a given saint’s innerexperience to such a degree that the readercan almost experience it for himself orherself, and, indeed, the goal of many of thedescriptions is to enable the reader to attainthese states. The Gaudiya literature andtradition construct a sort of ladder to thedivine, and one is encouraged to go stepby-step,until one reaches siddhi, orperfection in mystical experience . . . The34

more intense your emotion, the more likelyit is to attract Krishna. (284-85)By modeling our emotions after those ofRadha and the cowherd girls, we are able toprogress. We learn to feel and pictureourselves as one of them. The more wedevelop love and longing for Radha-Krishna,the more they respond. It’s a reciprocalrelationship.65. Dr. McDaniel: . . . Smarana literallymeans ‘remembering,’ and the processinvolves a combined method of visualizationand meditation. Through the rigors of thismethod, one becomes first familiar with theintricacies of Krishna’s ideal world, and thenenters into it. This is Rupa Gosvami’scharacterization of raganuga bhakti. . . . themeditative techniques involved are given byone’s guru. In most of these lineages,initiation by a genuine guru is quiteimportant...through the grace of the guru,there’s a new birth, in a sense, which bearsmany shamanic undertones--the death ofthe old self and the birth of the new.(288-9)This is the process Lalita Prasad taught me.I offer it in my book and to qualified students.Connection to a teacher and lineage poursgrace upon us and opens the door to thespiritual world making us one of Radha-Krishna’s transcendental associates in training.66. Dr. McDaniel: . . . Divine madness is notconsidered to be an aberration, as is35

ordinary madness--it expresses the highestreligious goal in not only Gaudiya Vaisnavatheology but also in certain mysticaltraditions associated with Judaism,Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism. (293)This again shows the universal nature ofdevotion to God-dess. We get a much fullerpicture of divinity through interfaith studies.Don’t be compartmentalized in your own littleview of things without seeing the big picture.67. SR: . . . Even the Taittiriya Upanishadincludes the famous statement raso vaisah--’the ultimate reality is rasa, orspiritual/aesthetic experience, it is only thisthat gives the highest bliss.’” (p 295)Developing and refining one’s appreciationof spiritual beauty is an important part of thedevotional process as we learn to taste thenectar deeply and fully.68. Dr. Carney: . . . Abhinavagupta made theimportant connection between aestheticexperience and religious transformation . . .Bhoja . . . emphasized the preeminence ofthe erotic rasa, sringara-rasa or madhurarasa.You can see, then, how this wholetradition of aesthetic and religious theorypaved the way for Rupa Gosvami, who, inthe sixteeenth century, developed this rasatheory into a theological system ofdevotion. (297)Clearly, Rupa’s system is based onpreexisting, Indian concepts of beauty and itsappreciation. Postmodern western concepts of36

eauty and the ideal lover certainly differ fromancient Indian ideas. Therefore, I re-imaginedRadha-Krishna’s pastimes for the present daywhile maintaining Rupa’s structure and spirit.69. Dr. Carney: . . . Vaishnavas--especiallythe Gaudiyas--developed this notion oferotic love still further, incorporating everyaspect of erotic psychology and therhetorical embellishments of the aesthetictradition. (301)Again, the revelations of the Goswamiswere based on preexistent cultural mores fromthe Kama Sutra, dramatics, poetics, etc. Itranslated not only the language, but also thesetting, characters, costumes etc. into awestern context to facilitate entrance into thisspiritual world by western devotees in myUniversalist Radha-Krishnaism. I began thisprocess for others to build upon.70. Dr. Carney: . . . Just as ordinary loversspend far more time suffering in the lover’sabsence than in the beloved’s embrace, sothe devotees of Krishna possess a lovewhich is purified through separation andyearning for a union which is not possessed.(302)This is my experience. It is developing thelonging for union with Radha-Krishna thatcounts. When that longing is fulfilled dependson Radha’s grace.71. Dr. Carney: . . . This is what raganugabhakti is all about: learning . . . throughspiritual discipline one’s role in God’s play,37

how to enter into that role in Krishna lilawhich is one’s own original part. Individuallife is a play with that ultimate framingdrama. (303)As we develop our role or identity in Radha-Krishna’s pastimes, we gradually transfer ourconsciousness from the outer world to thisinner reality, which we cultivate. Our longingand desire to live in our spiritual body withRadha-Krishna eternally engaged in ever newpastimes is what will carry us to perfectionwhen we give up the material body.72. Dr. Haberman: . . . Instead of beingsomething that’s reached only throughmeditative discipline, ultimatelyunderstanding lila as something removedfrom this world, it can also be seen on thisvery plane itself--as non-different fromKrishna. Activity in this world is anothermanifestation of lila. . . . I was mostinterested in lila-smarana, becauseraganuga bhakti sadhana for the most partis understood as lila-smarana...Now I aminterested in ordinary reality as lila. It mightbe said that this is another side of thetradition, but it’s really all over the place.(307)I experienced a similar shift. My formeractive, western lifestyle was not veryconducive to traditional meditative practices oflila-smarana. Now that I am retired and live asemi-secluded life, I do more and have devisedmy own practices that work for me in this38

setting. I still live more in the ordinary worldand aspire to see God-dess in everything.Therefore, I embrace panentheism as a morecomplete theology than theism.73. Dr. Haberman: . . . Once we begin tolisten to that particular side of the tradition,we see that the lila is not somethingreached only by rejecting the world; ratherthis very world is the lila. And activity in thisworld, if it could be perceived correctly, islila . . . The ascetics seem to emphasize thelila-smarana tradition, while thehouseholders, naturally, favor . . . seeing lilain the here and now, in this world. (308)I reject the ascetic path as unnatural,unhealthy, and unconducive to devotion formost Westerners. It is better to live in thisworld aware of God-dess’ presence ineverything.74. Dr. Haberman: . . . an ascetic who issitting off in a hut with his eyes closed tothe world and thinking of the divine lila isliving a very different life than the one whoaccepts whatever comes, does whatever isto be done, and strives to really see that aslila. I think that’s where the real differencecomes--it’s in the kind of lifestyle that isproduced from whichever viewpoint oneseems to hold. (310)Most Westerners are incapable of living astrict ascetic lifestyle and do better in marriedlife. Why promote renunciation rather than39

eing in the world but not of it? We mustreclaim the life affirming side of this tradition.75. Dr. Haberman: . . . they are two differentpaths with a sightly different philosophicalbent. Any tradition that calls itself by thephilosophical name acintya bhedabheda isreally setting one up to think aboutambiguities in a particular way. It is not thatthey are ultimately opposing notions, butrather they are opposites that define oneanother and in some inconceivable way arenon-different from one another. (317)I think it is a matter of emphasis. I practicemanjari sadhana, as well as I am able, alongwith seeing God-dess in the world. It’s both/and.76. Dr. Haberman: . . . devotion to Radha isreally considered to be higher than devotionto Krishna, especially in terms of manjaritheology . . . the two are non-different. Thegod or goddess of the Gaudiya tradition isnot Krishna, nor is it Radha, but it is reallyRadha-Krishna. This dual theology isimportant for the tradition . . . The ideal isone of dynamic equality. (322-3)This is why I use the term “God-dess” todescribe Radha-Krishna. The two are one. Forme and others in the manjari tradition, Radhais our foremost object of devotion, and we cantap into her infinite emotional experience oflove, which is far greater than we can attainindependently.40

77. Dr. Huberman . . . Radha is the Goddessof the Gaudiyas, and they see hereverywhere. They have a basis for itthough, so there’s nothing whatever wrongwith it. (331)This corroborates what was said above.78. Dr. Huberman . . . for the Gaudiyas, evenmore important than the scriptural tradition,is the event and the living embodiment ofCaitanya. . . . Caitanya embodies Radhaworshipping Krishna in separation, and thisis the highest achievement of rasa. (333)The life of Chaitanya is paradigmatic for hisfollowers. We aspire to enter into his intensemood of love, but of course that is not possiblefor ordinary people.79. SR: . . . what you have, essentially, is atheology that shows how Radha and Krishnaare ultimately everything . . . everythingand everyone is, more or less, an expansionof Radha Krishna. (337)Therefore we may speak about how ourpastimes are expansions of Radha-Krishna’spastimes.80. Dr. Huberman: So Radharani is thehighest, because she enables Krishna toexperience his highest pleasure, and he, inturn, brings Radha the highest pleasure.This is the great symbiotic mystery of theGaudiya Sampradaya, and it’s constantlygrowing, dynamically, emerging into deeperand deeper realities. . . . So whatever thesectarian emphasis, it has to be understood41

that, ultimately, Radha rules in Vrindavana.(343-5)Jai Radhe! Radhe! Radhe!42