The INDEPENDENT PLAY of SPONTANEOUS LOVE!
Our lives are blessed and successful if we can simply become enamoured with the sweetness of Sri Radha-Krsna's spontaneous love, which has a life of its own, beyond their control, playing eternally in ever-new and surprising ways.
The following recent exchange on the nuances of Vraja-prema brings to light its delightful independent nature:
Krishna Dharma dasa:
There is a statement in the Vidagdha-mādhava wherein Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, in an angry mood, addressed Paurṇamāsī after she had accused Rādhārāṇī of going to Kṛṣṇa. “My dear mother,” Rādhā declared, “what can I say to you? Kṛṣṇa is so cruel that he often attacks me on the street, and if I want to cry out very loudly, this boy with a peacock feather on his head immediately covers my face so that I cannot cry. And if I want to go away from the scene because I am afraid of him, He will immediately spread his arms to block my path. If I piteously fall down at his feet, then this enemy of the Madhu demon, in an angry mood, bites my face! Mother, just try to understand my situation, and don’t be unnecessarily angry with me. Instead, please tell me how I can save myself from these terrible attacks of Kṛṣṇa!” - Nectar of Devotion
Prem Prayojan:
Such a beautiful verse. What is most astonishing here is that Sri Krsna is not at all guilty of this mischief! The culprit is Srimati Radhika's own anuraga. These words are spoken by Srimati Radhika in purva-raga, the new awakening of love prior to meeting. During separation, the vyabhicari-bhava of moha, bewilderment, causes her to have visions (sphurtis) of Sri Krsna as if he were present before her, even though he is occupied elsewhere at the time. In the madness of love, Srimati Radhika is convinced that the meeting really happened.
The editors may have made a mistake regarding who is falling at the feet of whom and who is biting what. Biting the face of someone on the ground is far too aggressive for a shy boy to do to his potential love interest. The actual situation is far more gentle and humorous as the couple-to-be stage a fake struggle (in Radhika's mind), but deliberately not too much, thereby revealing their love and respect for each other indirectly. Note that She carefully avoids taking Sri Krsna's name as if she does not know who he is. The following rendition is closer to the original verse:
"When I cry out for help, this strong boy immediately covers my mouth with the freshly-sprouted buds of his hand. When I try to run away in fear, he stretches out his arms and blocks my path. When I express anger by biting my lower lip, he falls down at my feet again and again. O angry mother. Please tell me how I can protect myself from this boy whose crest is decorated with a peacock feather."
Krishna Dharma:
Thank you Prabhu. Is Krishna not fully present in his sphurti? Is Srimati Radhika creating an imaginary exchange, or is Krishna actually enjoying with her?
Prem Prayojan:
Dear Krishna Dharma Prabhu. Your questions open up a deep mine of nectar. Srila Jiva Gosvami comments that although Sri Krsna's behaviour was experienced by Radhika in a sphurti, she describes it as if it were a direct meeting (saksat). The subject is extremely nuanced and requires analysis from multiple vantage points. Let us address your three questions individually.
1) Is Krishna not fully present in his sphurti?
Yes and no.
From the vantage point of tattva (ontology), yes. Sri Krsna is non-different and inseparable from his name, form, qualities, and pastimes. Aisvarya-bhaktas, munis and rsis in santa-rasa will agree.
Nevertheless, from the vantage point of rasa, Sri Krsna in his naravat (humanlike) Vrndavan lila is subjectively mugdha (not omniscient). So, although one manifestation of Sri Krsna appears in the sphurti of Srimati Radhika to tease her while remaining invisible to others, the original form of Sri Krsna, who is visible to others, is not personally aware of what his other manifestation is doing in Srimati Radhika's sphurti. He knows nothing about it and cannot be held responsible for such actions. He is genuinely innocent.
2) Is Srimati Radhika creating an imaginary exchange?
We do not have a category from our sane experience to define it. Is she guilty of consciously imagining a scenario of her own volition? No. It is prema-vilasa, the play of love itself. Prema has its own life and independent will. Srimati Radhika is essentially being victimized by prema. So she is also genuinely innocent.
3) ..is Krishna actually enjoying with her?
In this particular case, the original manifestation of Sri Krsna, who is visible to all the Vraja-vasis, is not subjectively aware of enjoying with her. That is why acaryas state it is not a case of direct (saksat) meeting.
However, that does not preclude the possibility of Sri Radha and Krsna actually enjoying pastimes together in various types of supernatural visions arising from the intensity of love in separation.
There are different types of sphurtis. They are not considered to be the mellow of direct meeting, mukhya sambhoga-rasa. They are considered a secondary type, gauna-sambhoga. They may take place in a dreamlike state that occurs while awake or a type of waking state that occurs during dreams.
If a dream arises from the sancari-bhava called supti, the meeting is classified as samanya-gauna-sambhoga (general secondary meeting). If the dreams are intensified by eagerness (autkanthya) and subjectively indistinguishable from consensus reality, they are called visesa-gauna-sambhoga (special secondary meeting).
Now, during such visions, one lover may have the experience of meeting, whereas the other does not. In the verse under question, Srimati Radhika describes her experience meeting Sri Krsna, but Sri Krsna does not share or participate in that experience. Sometimes Krsna experiences meeting Sri Radha, while she does not experience meeting Sri Krsna.
For example, once when Sri Krsna was sleeping, Sri Radha wanted take the opportunity to steal his flute. Just as she reached for his flute, she noticed that Sri Krsna began to horripilate in ecstasy. Thinking that he must be pretending to be asleep, she abandoned the attempt to steal his flute.
The truth is that Sri Krsna really was asleep and dreaming that he was meeting with Sri Radhika. That is why he began to horripilate. In this case, we see that the original form of Sri Radha in consensus reality was not aware of her other form in Sri Krsna's dream.
This is called abhimana-bheda (separate identity), wherein transcendental beings are not aware of their own presence in other manifestations.
Still, there is a further category, in which both lover and beloved do indeed participate in the same dream sequence; the classic example being that of Usa in Sonitapura meeting Aniruddha in Dvaraka, while both were experiencing a shared dream. In such extraordinary instances, the lover and beloved may even return to consensus reality, bringing with them a token ornament or bodily marks acquired during the vision.
So, it is true that Sri Radha-Krsna do meet and enjoy together in visions arising from love in separation, but it is not always the case that they are both simultaneously aware of the same experience. The verse in question is an example of separate experiences.
Krishna Dharma:
Amazing. Thank you Prabhuji. Such deep pastimes. I pray that the compassionate Sri Radhika will bestow an atom of a drop of her mercy so I can somehow appreciate them.
Radhe Shyama!
The following recent exchange on the nuances of Vraja-prema brings to light its delightful independent nature:
Krishna Dharma dasa:
There is a statement in the Vidagdha-mādhava wherein Śrīmatī Rādhārāṇī, in an angry mood, addressed Paurṇamāsī after she had accused Rādhārāṇī of going to Kṛṣṇa. “My dear mother,” Rādhā declared, “what can I say to you? Kṛṣṇa is so cruel that he often attacks me on the street, and if I want to cry out very loudly, this boy with a peacock feather on his head immediately covers my face so that I cannot cry. And if I want to go away from the scene because I am afraid of him, He will immediately spread his arms to block my path. If I piteously fall down at his feet, then this enemy of the Madhu demon, in an angry mood, bites my face! Mother, just try to understand my situation, and don’t be unnecessarily angry with me. Instead, please tell me how I can save myself from these terrible attacks of Kṛṣṇa!” - Nectar of Devotion
Prem Prayojan:
Such a beautiful verse. What is most astonishing here is that Sri Krsna is not at all guilty of this mischief! The culprit is Srimati Radhika's own anuraga. These words are spoken by Srimati Radhika in purva-raga, the new awakening of love prior to meeting. During separation, the vyabhicari-bhava of moha, bewilderment, causes her to have visions (sphurtis) of Sri Krsna as if he were present before her, even though he is occupied elsewhere at the time. In the madness of love, Srimati Radhika is convinced that the meeting really happened.
The editors may have made a mistake regarding who is falling at the feet of whom and who is biting what. Biting the face of someone on the ground is far too aggressive for a shy boy to do to his potential love interest. The actual situation is far more gentle and humorous as the couple-to-be stage a fake struggle (in Radhika's mind), but deliberately not too much, thereby revealing their love and respect for each other indirectly. Note that She carefully avoids taking Sri Krsna's name as if she does not know who he is. The following rendition is closer to the original verse:
krosantyam kara-pallavena balavan sadyah pidhatte mukham
dhavantyam bhaya-bhaji vistrta-bhujo rundhe purah paddhatim
padante viluthaty asau mayi muhur dastadharayam rusa
mataa candi maya sikhanda-mukutad atmabhiraraksyah katham
"When I cry out for help, this strong boy immediately covers my mouth with the freshly-sprouted buds of his hand. When I try to run away in fear, he stretches out his arms and blocks my path. When I express anger by biting my lower lip, he falls down at my feet again and again. O angry mother. Please tell me how I can protect myself from this boy whose crest is decorated with a peacock feather."
Krishna Dharma:
Thank you Prabhu. Is Krishna not fully present in his sphurti? Is Srimati Radhika creating an imaginary exchange, or is Krishna actually enjoying with her?
Prem Prayojan:
Dear Krishna Dharma Prabhu. Your questions open up a deep mine of nectar. Srila Jiva Gosvami comments that although Sri Krsna's behaviour was experienced by Radhika in a sphurti, she describes it as if it were a direct meeting (saksat). The subject is extremely nuanced and requires analysis from multiple vantage points. Let us address your three questions individually.
1) Is Krishna not fully present in his sphurti?
Yes and no.
From the vantage point of tattva (ontology), yes. Sri Krsna is non-different and inseparable from his name, form, qualities, and pastimes. Aisvarya-bhaktas, munis and rsis in santa-rasa will agree.
Nevertheless, from the vantage point of rasa, Sri Krsna in his naravat (humanlike) Vrndavan lila is subjectively mugdha (not omniscient). So, although one manifestation of Sri Krsna appears in the sphurti of Srimati Radhika to tease her while remaining invisible to others, the original form of Sri Krsna, who is visible to others, is not personally aware of what his other manifestation is doing in Srimati Radhika's sphurti. He knows nothing about it and cannot be held responsible for such actions. He is genuinely innocent.
2) Is Srimati Radhika creating an imaginary exchange?
We do not have a category from our sane experience to define it. Is she guilty of consciously imagining a scenario of her own volition? No. It is prema-vilasa, the play of love itself. Prema has its own life and independent will. Srimati Radhika is essentially being victimized by prema. So she is also genuinely innocent.
3) ..is Krishna actually enjoying with her?
In this particular case, the original manifestation of Sri Krsna, who is visible to all the Vraja-vasis, is not subjectively aware of enjoying with her. That is why acaryas state it is not a case of direct (saksat) meeting.
However, that does not preclude the possibility of Sri Radha and Krsna actually enjoying pastimes together in various types of supernatural visions arising from the intensity of love in separation.
There are different types of sphurtis. They are not considered to be the mellow of direct meeting, mukhya sambhoga-rasa. They are considered a secondary type, gauna-sambhoga. They may take place in a dreamlike state that occurs while awake or a type of waking state that occurs during dreams.
If a dream arises from the sancari-bhava called supti, the meeting is classified as samanya-gauna-sambhoga (general secondary meeting). If the dreams are intensified by eagerness (autkanthya) and subjectively indistinguishable from consensus reality, they are called visesa-gauna-sambhoga (special secondary meeting).
Now, during such visions, one lover may have the experience of meeting, whereas the other does not. In the verse under question, Srimati Radhika describes her experience meeting Sri Krsna, but Sri Krsna does not share or participate in that experience. Sometimes Krsna experiences meeting Sri Radha, while she does not experience meeting Sri Krsna.
For example, once when Sri Krsna was sleeping, Sri Radha wanted take the opportunity to steal his flute. Just as she reached for his flute, she noticed that Sri Krsna began to horripilate in ecstasy. Thinking that he must be pretending to be asleep, she abandoned the attempt to steal his flute.
The truth is that Sri Krsna really was asleep and dreaming that he was meeting with Sri Radhika. That is why he began to horripilate. In this case, we see that the original form of Sri Radha in consensus reality was not aware of her other form in Sri Krsna's dream.
This is called abhimana-bheda (separate identity), wherein transcendental beings are not aware of their own presence in other manifestations.
Still, there is a further category, in which both lover and beloved do indeed participate in the same dream sequence; the classic example being that of Usa in Sonitapura meeting Aniruddha in Dvaraka, while both were experiencing a shared dream. In such extraordinary instances, the lover and beloved may even return to consensus reality, bringing with them a token ornament or bodily marks acquired during the vision.
So, it is true that Sri Radha-Krsna do meet and enjoy together in visions arising from love in separation, but it is not always the case that they are both simultaneously aware of the same experience. The verse in question is an example of separate experiences.
Krishna Dharma:
Amazing. Thank you Prabhuji. Such deep pastimes. I pray that the compassionate Sri Radhika will bestow an atom of a drop of her mercy so I can somehow appreciate them.
Radhe Shyama!
