QA:9-12

(Some of my friends, who are atheists, have asked these questions on sweet devotion and related topics. I have sent those questions to H.H. Shri Datta Swami, who has answered these questions. - Ms. Thrylokya)

9. Is my following hypothesis correct?

[Ms. Thrylokya asked:- Swami, the word 'Radha' is not mentioned in the entire Bhagavatam. After listening to Your answer about how Krishna created His unreal forms to satisfy Gopikas, I framed the following logical hypothesis:- Firstly, Radha is an imaginary character created by Krishna and described as His real female form. To satisfy all the Gopikas based on devotional justice, Krishna has to tell and prove every Gopika that she alone is the Queen of His heart. Therefore, Krishna might have used this character of Radha by imposing it on every Gopika, whoever He is with. That way, every Gopika feels that she is His real female form and that the real Krishna is with her only. Even if she sees the same Krishna with many other Gopikas having same romantic relationship, she would assume that they are unreal forms of Krishna and get satisfied. Hence, every Gopika enjoys Krishna practically and also believes theoretically that she is with the real form of Krishna since she is the real Radha. In fact, neither the romancing Krishna was real nor His statement of love was true. But, every Gopika's enjoyment and satisfaction are real and true. If the character of Radha is not created, a Gopika will not get full satisfaction since Krishna is equally present with every Gopika in romantic relationship only at the same time. Since loyalty plays the main role in romantic relationships, a Gopika gets full satisfaction when she thinks that God is really with her only and not with others. Only illusory unreal forms of Krishna romanced with every Gopika and wife, but, all Gopikas and wives were individually convinced and happy that she alone is the real power of God and not others, believing themselves as Radha. Therefore, only the word 'Gopika' is mentioned in Bhagavatam and not Radha since Radha is just an imaginary character. In this hypothesis also, the celibacy of Krishna as told by God Brahma is protected since His real form did not romance with any Gopika or any wife. Is my hypothesis correct?]

Swami replied:- Your hypothesis regarding Radha is perfectly correct because any devotee having continuous stream of devotion can be called as Radha as per the meaning of the word ‘Radha’. This idea is correct at present since Radha and her form are not existing now and every devotee having the meaning of Radha (continuous devotion) can be called as Radha by using the figure of speech called metaphor. But, if we stand in the time of the existence of Radha (The other secondary scriptures mention the entire story of Radha), Gopika with her own individual name and form exists and is completely different from Radha, who is existing with her individual separate form. Therefore, even an illusory Krishna will not say that Gopika is Radha. He may use a different name like Anaghaa, who is existing with different form in the upper world. He will not take the name of Radha even in the sense of the meaning of the word ‘Radha’ due to the separate existence of Radha in that time. He can use the name of Anaghaa with the meaning that Gopika did not do any sin by dancing with Krishna since Krishna is God and hence, it is also not wrong to call Gopika as Anaghaa.

Here, there is no difference in the souls due to gender since the Veda says that every soul is treated as female and God alone as Male (Purusha) due to the submissiveness of little-potentcy soul and the omnipotence of God. But, this does not mean that the incarnation of God Shiva called Radha was not existing at all. The other Puranams clearly explain the existence of Radha and even now one can see the native village of Radha existing very near to the native village of Krishna. Anaghaa exists as the personified embodiment of the inseparable unimaginable power of God Datta. But, Anaghaa also means any devoted soul, which is sinless. In Nivrutti, the devotee has to vote for God even against justice. This means that the devotee has to do injustice for the sake of God and this is called as Nivrutti. If a person votes for another person and for the sake of that another person, if injustice is done, it is called as Dushpravrutti. In this way, there is a lot of difference between Nivrutti and Dushpravrutti. Neither the human Radha nor the energetic Anaghaa is an imaginary character. Both these are the divine personifications of the causal power of God. Even if Radha existed, any Gopika can think that she is another form of divine power of God like Radha because another alternative real form of the divine power exists by the name Rukmini. Such thought is self-created Arthavaada, which is not wrong because it also encourages the self to progress in spiritual path. God has the power to multiply His real form also (apart from the power of creation of His illusory forms or other illusory forms, which means that He can create both real and unreal forms). Krishna already showed a miracle in the childhood itself that He can multiply His real form. Krishna remained in the house as a real form and multiplied His real form so that His real forms existed in the houses of Gopikas stealing butter. Here, we can take the multiplication of real form of Krishna since no romance was involved. But, when Krishna is to be involved with other wives and Gopikas, romance was involved. Therefore, in this context, Krishna created illusory Krishnas so that His celibacy is not damaged at all. At the same time, no Gopika or no other wife (other than Rukmini/Radha) was cheated because the unimaginable God was untouched and not involved in this affair since the illusory Krishna not having the unimaginable God-component is only involved in this affair. Of course, no other wife or no Gopika was cheated because both Gopika and Radha enjoyed the same form of Krishna with the similar gross bodies, similar individual souls and similar antahkaranams. In both cases, the same unimaginable God is not at all in need of the trace of illusory happiness generated by the interaction of illusory media. Not only Gopikas and illusory Krishnas are unreal due to their illusory media, but also the media of Radha and the real Krishna are illusory and unreal.

In the union of Radha and the real Krishna, the unimaginable God is involved in the romance through the real Krishna and the real Krishna is aware of this. But, this point is unnecessary since we are referring to Gopika and Radha only and not an illusory Krishna and the real Krishna. We are discussing about the cheating of Gopika and non-cheating of Radha. The presence or absence of unimaginable God in Krishna cannot be realised either by Gopika or Radha because Gopika is inherently ignorant and Radha is forcibly covered by ignorance to do justice to her role as a devotee. In view of all these points, Gopika is not cheated at all since in both cases, path of sweet devotion is one and the same and the final fruit of Goloka is also one and the same. Krishna did not cheat either Gopikas or wives or the critics in any way because the trace of illusory happiness was common everywhere. As long as the unimaginable God is not involved in the union, what is the difference among the real Krishna and other illusory Krishnas? Both real Krishna and illusory Krishna are only just the medium, which is a part of the creation having spatial dimensions. Since the form is one and the same between real and illusory Krishnas, every Gopika gets the full satisfaction that she met with real Krishna only. This does not mean that Gopika got satisfaction based on illusory Krishna and not real Krishna since there is no difference between real and illusory Krishnas because both Krishnas mean only their illusory media containing illusory gross bodies, illusory individual souls and illusory antahkaranams (action, word and feeling). There is difference neither in the path nor in the goal, which is the same Goloka.

10. Swami, please elaborate on why the name of ‘Radha’ is not mentioned in the Bhagavatam?

Swami replied:- If you examine the devotion of Radha to God, it is just like the recently created Brahmos weapon by Bharat. Radha is more aged than Krishna. She was married to Ayanaghosha in her childhood itself. But, her love to God is unimaginable and very powerful like the above said Brahmos weapon. She neither touched Ayanaghosha nor allowed Ayanaghosha to touch her after marriage. This principle was maintained by her even before marriage in the case of any other soul also. From the childhood, her total concentration was only on Krishna, even though Krishna was not born. She even overcame the fascination for children, which is the ultimate aim of the marriage. With this background, the most daring step taken by her is that she remarried Krishna. None of the above is allowed by the scripture of ethics and the divine constitution written by God Himself. This is the reason why the Bhaagavatam kept the name of Radha as a secret. If these facts came out, the society would have been terribly damaged at that time. In view of this truth, Sage Vyaasa hid the story of Radha. Some say that scholars have deleted the story of Radha from the Bhagavatam due to the above said fear.

11. Can we say that God unites with His real female form also with His illusory form only?

[Swami, this is regarding the reply (Click here) You have given to the question asked by Shri JSR Prasad Sir, where You said “The unimaginable God separates from Krishna in this one aspect of romance in order not to give any space for critics”. When unimaginable God is unattached and uninvolved even in sexual union with His own power, why is He having a married life at all? He can remain an unmarried celibate. Isn’t it? Why should we say that God unites with His own power (God’s real female form) with His real form? Since the realness is only due to the presence of unimaginable God-component, can’t we conclude that God unites with His real female form also through His illusory form only?]

Swami replied:- i) The unimaginable God is involved in the romance of His own form of His power since people may criticise that the divine personality of unimaginable God is not complete due to the absence of the element of romance. Moreover, God also wishes for a dualistic romance, but, not to attain any extra happiness (since He is the infinite ocean of bliss). His desire is only to change the variety of the entertainment like a king going to forest for hunting leaving his fully facilitated palace. The involvement of unimaginable God with His personified power appears to be dualistic superficially, but, in the real sense, it is only monism since He and His power are one and the same. I gave the example of unmarried AdiShankara, who did not marry enjoying the self-bliss. This example of AdiShankara is given because some critics may say that even God can’t remain in unmarried state enjoying the self-bliss. I gave an assumption for the omnipotency of God (who is beyond space) by saying that even in the case of such romance with His power, He can remain unattached to the medium of incarnation, which is a part of the illusory world having spatial dimensions. If this is the case, can you expect His attachment to souls through romance?

ii) You need not refer the reality of any specific individual like real Krishna, real Radha, illusory Krishna, illusory Gopika etc., since every illusory item of the illusory world has become real due to the gifted absolute reality from God.

iii) I told that unimaginable God can become unattached even in the romance with Radha if necessary. This is only an assumption to say that God is always omnipotent in any situation. Why I mentioned this assumption is because when God can remain controlled even in the romance with His own power, can’t He remain unattached and uninvolved in the romance with created souls? This does not mean that God is always unattached even in the romance with His own power. The unimaginable God and His unimaginable power are never personified directly without any medium. The personification of unmediated unimaginable God means mediation of unimaginable God to become God Datta. Similarly, personification of the unimaginable power of unimaginable God means the mediation of the unimaginable power to become Goddess Anaghaa. Therefore, the romance between God Datta and Goddess Anaghaa itself is the romance between unimaginable God and His unimaginable power. This concept of romance between unimaginable God and His unimaginable power can be extended to further energetic incarnations also such as God Brahma and Goddess Saraswati, God Vishnu and Goddess Lakshmi, God Shiva and Goddess Parvati and even to further human incarnations such as Rama and Sita, God Krishna and Radha/Rukmini. Hence, the enjoyment of Radha by the real Krishna only becomes the enjoyment of unimaginable power by unimaginable God.

12. How to distinguish Radha from Gopikas?

[You said that Krishna told Radha that both are one and the same. But, this statement was told to Gopikas also by the illusory Krishnas. How to distinguish Radha from Gopikas?]

Swami replied:- Rama told Hanuman that Rama is Hanuman. Rama also embraced Vibhiishana telling that Vibhiishana is Rama. Krishna told Radha that Radha is Krishna. Krishna also told Arjuna that Arjuna is Krishna (in the Gita). Here, this statement is true in the case of Hanuman and Radha and the same statement is not true in the case of Vibhiishana and Arjuna. A professor tells in the class that all the students are his issues. When he comes home and if some guest asks him about his children, he also shows and says that these are his children, which are his issues. The same statement is true in one case (home) and is not true in the other case (college). Here, a lie is told to some souls (in college) and this lie is not sinful because it is told to encourage the souls (students). It is a beneficial sinless lie told for achieving a merit of encouraging the students to become close with the teacher so that their attention on his teaching is increased. This is called as Arthavaada. Vaada = a lie told, Artha = for the sake of a good purpose. You must also have experienced such Arthavaadas told by your elders, your well-wishers and even your friends in your career. You must also have experienced tremendous progress in your educational career due to such encouragements. Even in professional line, the employers encourage their employees by such Arthavaadas. The wife shall not misunderstand her husband for telling such Arthavaada to the students in the class doubting his character thinking that he is having some other children without her knowledge! Like this, there is a lot of importance for Arthavaadas in every field in every corner of the world.

The main concept of Arthavaada is that the same statement is real in one place and is a beneficial meritorious lie for the encouragement of other souls in another place. You are accepting this point of the concept everywhere except in the case of Krishna, Radha and Gopikas and this is My unimaginable bad fate! Moreover, this Arthavaada is told by the illusory Krishna to every Gopika based on the wish of God only. Even if real Krishna told this to a Gopika, it should not be misunderstood by the wise Radha, who is the incarnation of God Shiva, the source of spiritual knowledge. In fact, this statement is told by illusory Krishna only and not by the real Krishna. Even if Radha acted as jealous about Gopikas based on such Arthavaada, she is preaching the devotees that a devotee shall not fall in the grip of ego and jealousy, which are the two cataracts covering the two eyes obstructing the vision to see the truth. Radha is preaching the spiritual devotees in sweet devotion that the devotee shall not be blind with ignorant possessiveness and end up misunderstanding God Krishna.